Comments on: Theft, Rebranded

By: Lori

Lori — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:00:33 +0000

Precisely my point, Devon. Newcomers make some pretty serious mistakes because of those contract terms sometimes. I hope this serves as a caution – read the thing and get help understanding it.

By: Devon Ellington

Devon Ellington — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:31:47 +0000

Lori, Part of one's job as a professional is to thoroughly read and understand any signed contract. "Being new" isn't an excuse. Unless you want to pay a lawyer to look over every agreement, learn how to read and interpret. Seasoned writers are extraordinarily generous when it comes to helping newcomers learn the ropes — provided the newcomer puts in a little effort, too.

By: Lori

Lori — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:36:39 +0000

Paula, I think it's a good idea. What I object to is if it's done without the company's knowledge. Darrell has rephrased his initial comments, which makes this post somewhat moot. :)

However, the lesson is still there. There are writers in this world who believe this to be perfectly normal. I worked with one once. Imagine having to inform a supervisor that no, you can't really take a freelancer's idea and assign it to a staffer.

Devon, I agree. What concerns me is when writers don't understand exactly what that means. Let's face it - business details are often overlooked by newcomers.

Wendy, you're smart. We should all study copyright laws more closely, mainly those that apply to writers.

By: Lori

Lori — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:07:12 +0000

Darrell, if I misrepresented your post, it was unintentional. Do me a favor - don't use words like "deliberately" and then back off the attack. I stated clearly this was a hypothetical idea. I didn't name you directly. I don't deliberately misrepresent anyone, including myself.

The idea, as you've rephrased, is perfectly fine. I agree. I'm sorry if I didn't understand your first post.

Eileen, exactly. The FCC has implemented the rules that will stop advertorials from being framed as news items. For that, I'm grateful (from a consumer standpoint). I don't see anything wrong with full disclosure. Some writers have voiced opposition ot that (not here that I've seen).

By: Eileen

Eileen — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:28:24 +0000

The thing I hate is these paid-for mentions appear to be unbiased opinions.
That will be a thing of the past, if the FTC has its way. They issued new guidelines a couple weeks ago requiring disclosure of arrangements such as these. How it will be enforced is anyone's guess, but it is now required.

By: Paula

Paula — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:24:45 +0000

Darrell's clarification is very similar to some job listings I've seen lately. I keep spotting ads from companies seeking people to blog and tweet about their products or services. It's the new form of cheap, guerrilla-style advertising.

Littering communities with graffiti and random posters is so last century.

The thing I hate is these paid-for mentions appear to be unbiased opinions.

By: Darrell

Darrell — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:14:28 +0000

I think you deliberately misrepresent what I wrote, but I understand that my meaning may have been lost as a result of the length of my posting, so let me try once more. To be clear, I will add that I am not advocating this, but pointing out that it is a "business model" that content mills are bound to encourage by virtue of the pay-per-click business model and lack of true editorial oversight.

A corporate client pays you to write material for content mills and the content mills let you do it. The corporate client likes it because it gets their message out. The content mills like it because they get easy content.

I fail to see how that is theft, copyright infringement or illegal in any way.

By: Devon Ellington

Devon Ellington — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:09:50 +0000

Most contracts are pretty clear on this matter, even if the final copyright doesn't revert from writer to client until the final payment has cleared.

It's hard to imagine any professional could consider such behavior a viable option, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Hopefully, those who behave that way get caught and pay the consequences sooner rather than later.

I'm all for using one set of research to create different articles for different markets,but that's a whole different thing than taking a work for hire piece, bought and paid for by a client, and re-selling it with a few minor tweaks.

By: my poem

my poem — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:03:19 +0000

Ur link is ready along time in my blogroll please link me too

By: Wendy

Wendy — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:34:10 +0000

Wow, I didn't realize that was what they were talking about. I took it a little differently, because they referred to getting permission. Not that it makes it any better, because I was thinking not many places would give permission.

I agree. Once a client contacts me and we finalize details over the project he/she has come up with; then I treat it as if they own it from the beginning. When it's all said and done and the project is paid for, then it is legally theirs.

In some cases, they pay a percentage up front, so technically it would be theirs to begin with. Unless, of course, they don't pay the rest.

The legal aspects of writing can be overwhelming, so at least once a year, I take time to brush up on my skills and study up on the legalese of writing. The last thing I want to do is get caught on a minor detail that I overlooked before.