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.Material published at ********.com belongs to ******* and the contributing author and/or photographer.
Online publication at ******* is to be exclusive beyond an author's personal blog. Authors are not permitted to cross-post their material to other web sites.
Authors wishing to submit ******** material to a print publication can do so, provided the article retains an ********* copyright notice and is licensed according our licensing policy.
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.
ME: I have an issue with the ******* policy of being the sole publication I can submit to outside of my own personal blog. I understand how an exclusivity policy works, but agreeing to exclusivity when I am not being compensated does not seem entirely fair. Since I'm no longer reviewing albums any longer even the free CD incentive isn't there.
It is a lot of work to set up, conduct, transcribe, write, edit and then still have to format the interview for ******* before it is published. All of this work is being done for gratis.
I am not asking, nor expecting ********* to change its policy for me. I can always try to find another publication to place the article, but I wanted to bring this issue to your attention first.
The exclusivity policy is really a major concern for me. Before I can move forward, I need some clarification as to how the arrangement can be made more equitable for all parties.
HE: It’s simple. I have no interest in content that appears in multiple locations as it devalues every site where the article appears. ******** is not a dumping ground for content. And Google isn’t kind to articles that appear in multiple locations.
I make articles look the best they can possibly look and we do it better than anyone. You will also generate more page views at ****** than anywhere else.
I do not pay for content because I cannot afford to pay for content. A jazz site that pays for content won’t be around very long. jazz.com was a great example.
You should shop the interview and see if you can find a taker.
If not, I’d proudly publish it and feature it.
I’ve conducted interviews and I’ve prepared thousands of them. I know it's work, but in the end, it’s worth the effort.
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?