I think this is the right place for this topic, but let me know if it's not.
Since 2006, I've been an unpaid contributor to a not-to-be named website which focuses on jazz music. Primarily, I write reviews of new music and occasionally conduct interviews with artists. My primary form of compensation comes by way of the free CDs I receive as a music critic.
Three years ago, I conducted a lengthy, career-spanning interview with a leading jazz musician. It was the most in-depth article which had been written about this artist in years and I was extremely proud of the final product. It was also my job to transcribe, write, lay out, provide all the photographs as well as edit the article for publication (and all for free).
At that time, I was also a contributor to an African-American news site that was not in direct competitor to the jazz site. I asked the editor/publisher of the jazz publication if I could submit a rewritten and shortened version of the article to the other site, which did pay contributors.
The editor flatly refused. He directed me to read a disclaimer on the site which stated unless the material was reprinted on the author's personal blog, the jazz site retained all publication rights to the material.
I swallowed my bruised pride and resolved to keep my contributions to the site restricted to material I would not be looking to place elsewhere.
In November I conducted a phone interview with a musician on a timely topic and it went terrific. I decided I would approach the jazz site's editor once again about the exclusivity restriction.
Even if I don't get paid for it, I chose to look for another website. Perhaps it is my ego talking, but I felt the publisher's response was a bit on the condescending side.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not angry at the publisher. He can come up with any policy he wants. But it's my choice whether I play ball or not and I'm looking for another playground.
The question is, am I naïve about how an exclusivity policy works and should accept this is pretty standard practice in the business?
Since 2006, I've been an unpaid contributor to a not-to-be named website which focuses on jazz music. Primarily, I write reviews of new music and occasionally conduct interviews with artists. My primary form of compensation comes by way of the free CDs I receive as a music critic.
Three years ago, I conducted a lengthy, career-spanning interview with a leading jazz musician. It was the most in-depth article which had been written about this artist in years and I was extremely proud of the final product. It was also my job to transcribe, write, lay out, provide all the photographs as well as edit the article for publication (and all for free).
At that time, I was also a contributor to an African-American news site that was not in direct competitor to the jazz site. I asked the editor/publisher of the jazz publication if I could submit a rewritten and shortened version of the article to the other site, which did pay contributors.
The editor flatly refused. He directed me to read a disclaimer on the site which stated unless the material was reprinted on the author's personal blog, the jazz site retained all publication rights to the material.
I had failed to read the intellectual property policy statement before joining on as a contributor, but it pretty much foreclosed any hope of resubmitting the article even in a changed format to another website. I wasn't at all happy, but it was nobody's fault but mine I hadn't read the fine print.
I swallowed my bruised pride and resolved to keep my contributions to the site restricted to material I would not be looking to place elsewhere.
In November I conducted a phone interview with a musician on a timely topic and it went terrific. I decided I would approach the jazz site's editor once again about the exclusivity restriction.
Even if I don't get paid for it, I chose to look for another website. Perhaps it is my ego talking, but I felt the publisher's response was a bit on the condescending side.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not angry at the publisher. He can come up with any policy he wants. But it's my choice whether I play ball or not and I'm looking for another playground.
The question is, am I naïve about how an exclusivity policy works and should accept this is pretty standard practice in the business?
For whatever reason, people are apparently willing to give him free labour to facilitate that.