Thursday, November 12, 2009

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:

Labels: , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just curious, do you have permission to repost verbatim? It happens a lot on your blog.

Copyright-concerned writer.

2:45 pm  
Blogger D. B. Scott said...

In fact, I very, very rarely reprint entire items, and then usually with permission. In this particular case, I was sure it would be OK -- and it was.

All verbatim excerpts are clearly indicated and links are provided to the articles themselves in both the body of the posting and in the headline.

3:10 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Three cheers for Kim. She has emerged as a real leader in the editorial community. Let's hope other editors call her up and fill the holes in her schedule created by her gutsy decision to drop Transcon.

12:04 am  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home