Staff-written magazine archives can be repackaged and re-sold as "collections"

A new revenue opportunity may be open to magazines which can repackage their archival material into iPad-only collections, according to a story about The New Yorker, published by Reuters. At the Ballpark, a collection of staff-written baseball writing from 1929 to 2011, features John Updike, David Grann and the inimitable Roger Angell. The revenue came from sponsorship by United Airlines. There was also sponsored golf and "sustainability" collections.

"Nearly all of these pieces are timeless, just waiting to be rediscovered," writes Felix Salmon. "And the New Yorker’s archives are so deep, and are of such high quality, that there’s really no limit to how many of these things it can produce. Each one is very cheap to put out — just cobble together a bunch of articles under a theme, and get a TNY writer to pen a short introduction. Meanwhile, the advertisers get to align themselves with popular or trendy subjects (golf, “sustainability”), and reach an audience which is affluent even by New Yorker standards."

One of the things that Salmon doesn't address is non-staff written content. Today, magazine publishers strong-arm freelance writers to obtain "all rights" (usually for the same price as one-time rights); but previous to that, most archives of most magazines consist of material that was bought on a first rights basis and reverted to the writers afterwards. For magazines in that position, there is a lot of paperwork (and expense) getting the rights to package such archival material.

When isn't it plagiarism? When it's "promotion" for Men's Health, apparently

Dave Zinczenko, the editor of Men's Health, was accused of plagiarizing his own writers by the blog Gawker for cutting and pasting old Men's Health content, removing the bylines and putting the material in his Yahoo column "Eat This, Not That".  Zincezenko told Gawker 

We use this material to grow traffic and awareness for the Men's Health and Women's Health brands and a variety of Rodale products. Nowadays promoting the company's products on a blog is no different than going on TV and promoting the latest issue.

Gawker replied, acidly

Yes, it's normal for websites to republish articles from other sites—but it's certainly not normal for an editor to take articles written by other people and pass them off as if he wrote them himself.

What is more interesting were the following observations from an online article by the New York Observer media columnist Kat Stoeffel, headlined You can't plagiarize a brand

Multi-platform media brands are slowly chipping away at the monument of authorship through syndication and cross-promotion. It would be really crushing for egomaniacal writer-types—if anyone of them gave a damn about that kind of  high-fructose, servicey, SEO-bait content.

The reason why so many of the pieces "plagiarized" were unbylined is that no one wants to take credit for them .... We bet whoever wrote those slideshows was happy to get paid to do them, but is also more than happy to let Dave Zinczenko be the face for them. And when the syndication is simply promotional, in hopes of moving eye balls, not dollar bills, than what is there even worth fighting for?

Rogers syndication practices called into question by Canadian Writers Group

Derek Finkle who runs the Canadian Writers Group, an agency that represents some of Canada's most successful magazine freelancers, has called into question how one large magazine publisher, Rogers is syndicating articles to third party websites. Essentially it is that magazine articles are being posted on third party websites such as Yahoo and MSN by Rogers despite signed contracts with writers and without the writers (or their agent) being aware of it. This practice is apparently widespread, although frontline editors are sometimes also surprised by it.

On Friday, Finkle reported on the Toronto Freelance Writers and Editors listserv some of the details of conversations he has had with Rogers as a result of representing his CWG clients and perhaps the best course is simply to reprint what he said (we did a screen grab of one of the pages in question (above). 

I recently discovered an article that a writer with the Canadian Writers Group had published in Chatelaine three or four months ago had been syndicated on Yahoo's "Lifestyle" site. I was a bit surprised by this as we had not ticked the box on the Rogers contract that gave the company the right to publish the work "on the Web sites of third parties" (we never tick that box).

I then searched for another Chatelaine story by another of our writers, and it, too, popped up on the Yahoo site. What was even more surprising was that Chatelaine had only been permitted to publish this particular story on its web site for 45 days according to our agreement. It had been removed from Chatelaine's site for many months, so I was curious how it came to be resurrected on Yahoo.

When I spoke to the handling editor for both stories, she was also surprised - no one had ever told her that Chatelaine was syndicating content with Yahoo.

Finally, I was put in touch with the online editor responsible for syndication at Chatelaine. She told me that "legal" had come in and told her and her online colleagues they could syndicate whatever stories they liked. When I pointed out to her that the contracts related to these stories didn't permit such usage, she had the Editor of Syndicated Content, Robyn Shanks, pull them from Yahoo.

Around the same time, I queried the person with whom the agency has been having discussions related to the new Rogers contract, and he mentioned somewhat sheepishly that this usage might be covered under the "promotions" clause in the contract. So I asked Robyn Shanks, the editor of syndicated content, what the point of syndicating Rogers content on Yahoo was. She told me that it was meant to drive traffic back to web sites owned by Rogers and presumably, therefore, increase ad revenue. Not exactly promotional use as most people would define it.

I then discovered more stories by our writers from other Rogers publications on Yahoo. Here is an example of a story that first appeared in Flare and is now on Yahoo (it may not be there much longer):

http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/family-relationships/articles/dating/rogers-flare/why-men-and-women-cheat-2010-07-26

Shanks told me that she is responsible for syndicating content from eight Rogers publications with both Yahoo and MSN: Flare, Chatelaine, Today's Parent, Lulu, Moneysense, Canadian Business, Maclean's, and Canadian Parent.

Related posts:

• Rogers Publishing rolls out new freelance contract that requires rights "across all forms of media"

Photographers tell People magazine "When you put our photos on an iPad, you have to pay"

In a tussle that may have implications for Canadian magazine publishers and their freelance contributors, Time Inc.'s People magazine has apparently had to postpone the launch of its iPad app because photographers want additional payments for use of their images.

According to a front page story in the Hollywood Reporter, more than a dozen agencies representing photographers are balking at the reuse of celebrity shots.

While the standoff centers on one publication for now, just about any other brand that makes photos of the rich and famous their stock in trade is watching nervously from the sidelines. Whatever deal they strike could set the terms of trade for the industry going forward.

Negotiations are scheduled for tomorrow (Thursday) in New York.

"I do think it's an important moment as far as the photo-agency business model," said Jill Stempel, New York bureau chief for World Entertainment News Network, which on Tuesday was considering joining the agency alliance. "We need to take a stand."

A People spokeswoman refused to comment beyond offering the following statement: "The People iPad application launch date has absolutely nothing to do with photo agencies."

Photo agencies see the tablet market as a game-changer, the story said.

"They realized that in most cases People.com was not making ad revenue or subscription money off extended use of their photos," said Brandy Navarre, vp at X17, a photo agency that plans to negotiate separately from its unified front of competitors. "But when you're talking about paid apps supplemented by advertisements, that's something different altogether."

People wants free use of photos, saying the app (which costs consumers $4.99) essentially replicates the print magazine. It is also arguing that photo use is covered by a clause in overall licensing agreements that allows for promotional repurposing.

Writer's open letter to Canadian writers urges them to join "a real union"

In the accelerating turmoil of e-rights and relations between editors and publishers and their freelancers, here is an interesting take on the situation, from writer Sarah Sheard. In her blog she has written an open letter counselling Canadian writers to consider joining the U.S.-based National Writers' Union. She met with two officials of the NWU in June, soon after resigning from The Writers' Union of Canada (TWUC) and wanted to say why she is joining the NWU.One of the reasons is that, unlike some Canadian writers' organizations, it stood up strongly against the Google Book Settlement.

It is an activist union. In my view, this is what writers must have, at this time. NWU is vocal and specific about contract terms and has set high royalties for erights. They are not afraid to litigate. Their affiliation with the UAW (United Auto Workers) puts hard-line union teeth into their commitment. I contacted them to discuss how Canadian writers might participate with NWU.

Ten days ago, I  met in person with Larry Goldbetter, President, and Karen Ford, 3rd Vice President, who travelled to Canada to meet with me, writer David Bolt and Linda Page, a Canadian academic writer. We discussed how Canadian writers might join forces with NWU in order to fight together for a fair share of erights and related digital issues soon to confront all writers on this continent and elsewhere.

We agreed that digital publishing cannot be contained within geographic boundaries and will have vast implications wherever/however our writing is marketed to readers. We believe that writers can best fight for their creators’ share if they stand together, pool information and network with one another — certainly within North America.

The NWU has scalable membership fees and it is open to professional and aspirational writers.

Sheard explained why she resigned from TWUC:

In March, I resigned from The Writers’ Union of Canada. I do not believe it is sufficiently committed to fighting hard and smart on behalf of its members. This is a critical time for writers quickly to get savvy to the technology reshaping our livelihoods, and to put more voice into how we make our cultural contribution.

TWUC is currently searching for a new Executive Director. A steep learning curve lies ahead for whoever takes the wheel. Here’s hoping TWUC finds someone with both the passion and the steel to advance writers’ causes effectively. Meanwhile, there is no time to lose.

I am joining NWU. Its site is a model to me of what a writers’ union ought to be. At last, I thought, reading it. A real union.

Related posts:

• Why I won't sign the Transcontinental contract, by Kim Pittaway
• Boycott of Transcontinental Media titles now promoted by new website
• Freelancers dismayed by Transcon's new "take it or leave it" freelance contract
• U.S. freelancers given a Canadian view of Canadian freelance rates

Why I won't sign the Transcontinental contract, by Kim Pittaway

A post by Kim Pittaway on the site Bad Writing Contracts is both brave and thought-provoking, and by rights should provoke some reconsideration by Transcontinental Media about the master contract it is imposing on freelancers. It's headed "Why I won't sign the Transcontinental contract".

Pittaway, former editor-in-chief and managing editor of Chatelaine magazine and past president of the National Magazine Award Foundation, has been a frequent contributor to Transcon magazines. Here is what she says:

I’ve had great working relationships with editors at More and Homemaker’s, and know and respect many others who work for Transcontinental–which is why I was so deeply disappointed by this new contract, one which conveys a fundamental disrespect for the creators who contribute so much to the success of Transcon’s publications.

Why does this contract seem disrespectful to me?

• Because it grabs a whole bundle of new rights with little or no additional fee. I know that print publications are struggling to find new revenue streams. I get that the media mix is shifting. And I’m eager to work with editors and publishers to find new ways to reach readers. But publishers already get a bargain on the print rights they purchase from copyright holders–those rates haven’t gone up in over 30 years. And to now say you’re taking a whole whack of new rights for the same bargain-basement rate is simply unfair. I own those rights on my work. And I choose not to sell them to you at that low rate.
• Because it was imposed with no consultation with writers. One day, I had a great working relationship with my editors, was juggling three or four assignments, and all was right with the world. Oh–and I’d just garnered Transcon mags two National Magazine Award nominations. The next day, I was told that if I didn’t sign the contract as is, no changes, that I wouldn’t be working for them any longer.
• Because it is a sign-once, live-with-it-forever contract. This contract applies to my work with Transcon in perpetuity and applies to all work for all Transcon properties. So Transcon is locking in the rights they want at a point when suppliers are vulnerable because of the current economic situation, and preventing writers from renegotiating the contract at any point in the future. Who in their right mind signs a contract that applies forever?

I’m mystified by this contract–perhaps because I have difficulty believing that the good folks I know at Transcon actually intended to send such a negative message with it. Maybe they’re getting bad legal advice. I hope that’s the reason. But even more than that, I hope we’re able to engage in a constructive conversation to change it. Because a bad contract is bad for writers, it’s tough on editors and it’s ultimately bad for magazines and their readers. And that’s a shame, for all of us.

Related posts:

• Boycott of Transcontinental Media titles now promoted by new website
•  Derek Finkle of Canadian Writers Group responds to Marcoux statements
• Transcontinental contract is misunderstood, says senior executive
• Transcontinental Media said to be prepared to modify controversial freelance contract
• Transcon being pressed by industry reps to change proposed freelance contract
• Freelancers dismayed by Transcon’s new “take it or leave it” freelance contract

National Geographic starts selling entire archive, free of obligations to freelance contributors

National Geographic has just released for sale a complete digital archive of the magazine going back to October 1888, following a pair of federal appeals court rulings in June 2008 that says U.S. magazine and newspaper publishers may transfer their published archives to digital format and sell them without paying further fees to freelancer contributors.

According to a story published by Folio:, anyone who buys the archive at $69.95 for the DVD-ROM box set or $199.95 for a portable hard drive can scroll, search and print with 1,200 dpi clarity.

For more than a decade, National Geographic argued in court that it shouldn’t have to pay freelancers additional royalty fees associated with the commercial sale of the first edition of “The Complete National Geographic,” which was released in 1997.