Casey McKinnon, writing at Guardian Unlimited, shines light on something that anyone creating and publishing web content should be aware of: their rights.
Apparently, TV folk are discovering they can do cheap programming showing video from the ‘net. They clear rights for pieces with contracts that may contain landmines.
Unfortunately, the majority of web video producers are working for the love of it. They don’t have the business or legal know-how to fully understand what the contracts that are sent to them mean. Often, the idea that their work might be featured on their favourite TV station is so exciting that they don’t bother to read the small print.
While many people making web video don’t expect to get paid for having their content broadcast on TV, they do expect recognition. Unfortunately, in contracts I’ve seen recently from major American broadcasters, these new programmes aren’t even willing to credit the producers by name or by web address.
What’s more, these contracts often contain exclusivity rights – so not only do they expect you to sign over your content royalty-free, but for a long period of time. And, thanks to the quiet insertion of a waiver of moral rights, the creators don’t have any control over spin-offs based on their work.
As someone who creates and publishes on the ‘net, I don’t mind sharing. I’ve allowed a number of bloggers and web publishers — none of them big money-makers — to use my photos. But I’ve freelanced enough and bought enough from freelancers to have a good idea what the legal broilerplate means, and what lines I draw. If you’re making money off my stuff, I want some. And I can’t think of a situation where I would sign away moral rights or rights in perpetuity.
I very much like Casey’s idea:
What we web video producers need to do is to ground ourselves as small businesses and micro production companies. Like any company, we need a lawyer to look over our contracts to make sure that we retain our rights. Or we could have a lawyer help us to write our own contract to send to the broadcasters as a way of outlining what’s acceptable.
And I would extend that beyond web video: if someone thinks they can make money from your Flickr photographs, online writing — or even your web design — they should pay for it. And you should take whatever steps necessary to protect yourself.
And, as an aside, I’m wondering if this shouldn’t also apply to the citizen journalism that’s being encouraged, and scooped up, by money-making publication companies.
TAGS: VIDEO, ONLINE, RIGHTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, BUSINESS, COPYRIGHT
Hi Mark…I discovered problems with rights awhile back (check here for info on FoxNews and CBS’s policies on UGC)
There’s also been a surge in various portals and outlets asking for written “contributions” and demanding exclusive rights. This has been an issue with some newspapers and “citizen journalism” contributions, but now the policy is spreading. Lately, I’ve been asked by a number of portals for “contributions” with the come-on that to be published there will increase my traffic and “boost” whatever business I may have on the side. But what if writing is one of my businesses? and I’d like to be paid for it? Apparently, publishing online is getting to be a lot like it was with small literary magazines and ‘zines–you get “paid” in traffic. The main difference, though, is that you can never re-purpose or re-publish. It’s a lose-lose deal for the writer.