Writers reusing Clients Articles after Sold

What part of the law do find misleading? If you don't stipulate full rights, you don't have them... that's all there is to it. Unique at the time of purchase, as I've already said, only means you're guaranteed what's known as first rights... not full rights. Just because some people can't grasp that doesn't mean it's not true. If anything, clients need to better educate themselves if they want to be in the content business. If you get involved in any aspect of the publishing business, including Web publishing, you need to know the "rules of the game." Does that mean every writer will re-sell the work if they keep the rights to it? No. I don't most of the time. But the point is that I often can... and so can a lot of writers here on DP. This is why rights need to be discussed prior to purchase.

 

Jenn, these people are hopeless with this. You can only say the same thing so many times, lol.

 

I ghost-write write ebooks for people. I always state my terms up front so they have a record of it in their email - "when I write something for you, you own the copyright, you may put your name on it, resell it, rewrite it, or use it however you choose. I do not disclose to anyone that I wrote this content for you."

Although it has never occurred to me to even bother to say that they and only they own the content - I mean, they just PAID me to create it, why would I think I could go and sell it to someone else as well? But I guess I should also say that "you own the exclusive rights to this copy".

And for people who buy copy from others - now you know - make sure that you figure out what terms you want and get the writer to agree to them up front. (Or pick another writer.)

Also - important side note - never pay for all of a project up front, in my opinion. I occasionally see people posting on forums that they've been burned doing that. I get 25 percent up front...I send 25 percent of the copy...they approve it and send me the next 25 percent.

 

In the context of this thread I'm not sure that it matters whether it was legal or not - I doubt many people would try to sue over two articles. But this thread certainly brings home the important point that both the writer and the buyer should make sure that they agree on all terms before proceeding.

 

Scarlett... there's an important point that you made... you said you specifically tell them they have the copyright, which is the same thing as fully owning the content. It means only they can license it to others, resell it, grant resell rights to others, etc. when it's delivered. Full rights and copyright are the same thing. On the other hand, a writer can offer exclusive rights, exclusive Web rights, etc., but still technically own the copyright (meaning they can claim authorship in a private portfolio, sell to print clients if they only sold exclusive Web rights, etc.). Publishing rights are complicated, and something most Web publishers really don't bother to educate themselves about before getting into the business (at least on the lower-end, where we see a lot of cheaper content being sold, used exclusively for SEO value, and such).

 

Yeah, I've actually never had a client ask me for rights or about them or anything. I'm on the lower end, so you know how that goes. I'm trying to work my way up the pay ladder...

 

I know you thought you had full rights and you didn't expect the writer to republish the articles after you'd purchased them. The truth is unstated assumptions and expectations won't hold water if you have to go
to court over a copyright dispute. Unless it's expressly stated otherwise, the author has full copyright of hte work.

This time it was just 2 articles. Next time, it could be New York Times best-selling novel. Get copyright details in writing. You should specify what rights you and the seller have to the work and (if necessary) for how long.

 

Thanks, Jenn! Honestly, I'm sure what I spell out for my clients is far from perfect in a legal sense - at some point I should get a lawyer to help me draft a copy. But I believe I cover the bases and explain it well enough that people know what they are getting.

Another side note - just as no-one should pay the whole fee up front, especially when working with a new writer...writers shouldn't write a project without a down payment. And NEVER fall for that "Well, write one free sample for me and then I'll see if I want to hire you" scam.

 

It seems to be an ethical issue on the part of the writer. I think most writers wouldn't do that, especially hired to write something original.. simple contracts never hurt.

 

Never assume! Get it in writing every time that you purchase full copyright, or if you want to be more specific, purchase full web rights. (You get rights to purchase the content and use it on the web exclusively, but give them rights to let them sell it to someone else for publish in print only.)

Maybe it is unethical, or the writer is ignorant. You can ask the writer to remove the content and wait a few months before you publish your own copy of the articles if you wish. Next time, get the rights in writing. Let me know if you need a copy of a contract you can use to retain full rights. You can make one up yourself though, just whatever it is, get a signature on it.

 

That would ONLY work if indeed the writer gave away all the rights to the content and published it anyway. Because the OP did not get it in writing that rights were to be transferred to him, the writer is in no way obligated to remove the content from his/her site.

How many times must one say the same thing before it starts to get into people's brains?

 

The law is clear on this matter: the articles belong to the original writer and may be used by them since you did not get it in writing. However, I would think that, ethically speaking, the writer's actions are a bit on the shady time. Don't get me wrong, I'm very much on the side of freelance writers and their rights, and I know how difficult it can be to make a decent wage in this business, but I would never do something that compromised me ethically, and I believe this is such a thing. The original poster clearly stated that he wanted unique articles. Legally speaking, this does not mean he gets the rights to the articles, but ethically speaking, I'd say the writer shouldn't go reposting those articles. This is just a case of ethics and law not matching up perfectly, imo.

 

What's unethical about it? There's no ethical dilemma if the articles were unique when they were given to the client. Again, technically they only would have been buying first rights; not full rights. The only issue on that front would be if the writer published them before delivery. If the client wanted a specific time frame, they had to stipulate that. The fact that the client didn't know what they were doing when they were making the deal doesn't mean actions on the writer's part are unethical in any way.

 

It's also really not a smart way to do business - burning bridges and creating bad feelings just so you don't have to write two new articles yourself? If you're a writer, writing two new articles frankly should not be all that hard.

 

If anything, ScarlettLetters, I would imagine the buyer wasn't being very "smart about business" when they neglected to stipulate the complete terms up front.

 

OK, so based on what you said, they bought first rights. Doesn't this mean that the buyer had the rights to publish the articles first...even if it's a few months later? The original writer chose to ignore that and instead posted the articles before the buyer put them up. That's what I would deem as unethical.

I'm definitely not trying to disagree with you just for the sake of it, but something about this writer and his/her actions is just plain wrong to me. Not to mention, as someone else posted, it's a bad business practice.

 

TerrificContent, the buyer didn't buy first publishing rights, so as long as the article was unique and unpublished at the time of purchase, the seller did nothing legally or ethically wrong.

 

They had the rights to use it. They didn't have the rights to sit on it and "hold it" indefinitely. Yet again, if they wanted it unique for any specific period of time, it was their responsibility to get that in writing and make that clear. The author doesn't lose the rest of their rights just because the client decided to sit on it for quite a while.

And this isn't bad business on the writer's part... it's actually very typical. I'd consider it more unethical to try to cheat a professional out of their full rights to monetize their work when you're not necessarily paying for all of those rights up front. If you want 'em, pay for 'em. And for goodness sake, get it in writing. (Is it just me, or is this thread starting to sound like a damned broken record?)

 

Oh no, it's just you

 

Haha - it's definitely NOT just you Jenn. Sometimes people are so damn stubborn they don't even bother realizing when they've been proven wrong.