I think how you phrased it is perfect, Paula. A question often allows them to see where the problems lie.

I think the fact that I used actual logic on the potential client helped: Why would I ever accept liability for actions taken by others well after my copy has been handed in? I have no power to ensure their “corrections” are correct, and this is clearly a case of your legal team trying to shift staffers’ liability onto others.

I also made it clear I wouldn’t sign anything that made me liable for the decisions of others—especially people I’ve never met.

Yeah, no boilerplate. That smacks of employer-employee relationship, not an exchange of professional services.

See, I’ve never understood that type of thinking, Devon. It’s a mistrust, or maybe the need to control that I believe makes some prospective clients demand the onsite work. It makes no sense, either. I can get more done in four hours than I ever did in an office for eight hours.

I’ve noticed, with some of the small book publishers, that when my agent and/or lawyer and I go through for negotiations, they say “we don’t negotiate” and expect me to sign a boilerplate. As far as I’m concerned, the initial contract is where we START negotiations. I don’t sign boilerplates.

The company that sent it to me was a big one — and knew better. They didn’t move forward because I asked for the liability section to be revised. You’re lucky if your client saw the problem and corrected it. These guys didn’t think there was a problem. They didn’t want the liability. I figured it’s best they keep the work internal if that’s the case. 😉

In a few cases, I have had clients who send standard contracts that don’t fit, and they’re quite happy to change things. The one time I did get burned on a contract was with ‘Teen Magazine decades ago (literally). They had a contract that stated one word — “minimum” — that ended up costing me $1500. They paid me for that “minimum” 500 words and printed the whole thing. And they never answered my letter pointing out that they’d used the entire thing without compensating me. Why? Because how it was worded (and it’s been years, so I’m fuzzy on what it had said) left them off the hook and left me high and dry.

These days, with the internet, they’d never get away with that. If they’re even in business anymore.

The editor who’d sent it admitted she hadn’t even read the standard contract supplied “by Legal.” She agreed it was ridiculous and had “Legal” draw up a new contract for me. It didn’t have that clause and I signed.

I also had potential client send a one-size-fits-all contract that was really geared more to maintenance and repair contractors than content providers. I crossed out all points that didn’t apply to writing and editorial issues and sent it back unsigned. This place also sent me a more appropriate contract.

My guess? Some legal departments simple find it easier to create one or two all-encompassing contracts filled with legalese that are too difficult for most people to decipher (but not writers!) than to write separate contracts for different types of projects.