Contract Review: CurtCo Robb Media
An investigative negotiator - otherwise known as a reader of this blog who sent something for me to review - forwarded a copy of the CurtCo Robb Media Contributor Agreement. I'm posting a review for anyone who might find it interesting. Please remember that I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.
We start with the first paragraph. Subsequent assignments all have to use this document for the indefinite future. If you can't get them to budge on anything - and, rumor has it, you can't - then these will be the terms, period.
Next, the "work must be acceptable in form and content as submitted or revised." That leaves them room to refuse the work on virtually any grounds and doesn't put you in a position of arguing for full pay because you've submitted a professionally written article on the subject they mentioned.
Now for a nastier part: "If the work is acceptable, and if the work is published [emphasis mine] in a CurtCo Robb Media publication or a publication prepared for a CurtCo Robb Media customer," then you get paid the fee in Schedule A - the document that says what the assignment is. You must prior approval of any expenses and document them.
If the work isn't accepted for publication - which could mean they just decide not to use it - the writer gets "a 'kill fee' not to exceed 25%" of the original fee. Notice the language "not to exceed." That clause isn't even guaranteeing 25%.
Next, "However the 'kill fee' will only be paid if it is demonstrable that the Contributor exerted best efforts to produce the work. Nothing in this agreement obligates CurtCo Robb Media to use the work." How would you show "best efforts" in trying to produce an article? Log your time? provide all notes, which means you've handed over valuable material to people who don't seem inclined to pay for your full effort?
The publisher wants work made for hire, and if that doesn't apply (not all does, under the copyright statutes), then you assign copyright and all other rights and interests in the article. The company and its partners can do anything they want, and you don't get any extra money, even if they could turn the article into a movie deal.
They can use your name and biography "in connection with the use and exploitation of the work," but they don't guarantee you a byline.
Then you have the warranties, that the article "contains no defamatory, libelous or unlawful matter, and the exploitation of the work by CurtCo Robb Media or its affiliates, licensees, assignees, successors and partners shall not violate or infringe upon the copyright rights, rights of privacy and/or publicity, or any other statutory, common law or other rights of any party." From what I've heard, it sounds as though they won't let you add "knowingly," although a later clause does say that it must be construed under California law, so it's not like you're saying that you provide these warranties under all laws in the world, as many contracts effectively have you do.
The indemnification covers "CurtCo Robb Media and its affiliates, licensees, assignees, successors and partners" and is for "the breach or claimed breach of the foregoing representations and warranties." You aren't just indemnifying for an actual breach of the warranties, but for any claim that you've breached the warranties. That's so wide open that you are a duck sitting on a football field with hunters filling the stands.
"This Agreement contains the entire understanding and agreement between Contributor and CurtCo Robb Media, supersedes and replaces all prior agreements and understandings (oral and written) and cannot be modified or amended except by a written agreement signed by Contributor and CurtCo Robb Media. " If an editor tells you anything contrary to what the contract says, either before or after you sign it, those assurances mean nothing. This document is the sole set of rules.
From what I've heard, the company's rates aren't all that high on top of it, so you're having to give away a lot to get little. Better to get yourself to other clients.
We start with the first paragraph. Subsequent assignments all have to use this document for the indefinite future. If you can't get them to budge on anything - and, rumor has it, you can't - then these will be the terms, period.
Next, the "work must be acceptable in form and content as submitted or revised." That leaves them room to refuse the work on virtually any grounds and doesn't put you in a position of arguing for full pay because you've submitted a professionally written article on the subject they mentioned.
Now for a nastier part: "If the work is acceptable, and if the work is published [emphasis mine] in a CurtCo Robb Media publication or a publication prepared for a CurtCo Robb Media customer," then you get paid the fee in Schedule A - the document that says what the assignment is. You must prior approval of any expenses and document them.
If the work isn't accepted for publication - which could mean they just decide not to use it - the writer gets "a 'kill fee' not to exceed 25%" of the original fee. Notice the language "not to exceed." That clause isn't even guaranteeing 25%.
Next, "However the 'kill fee' will only be paid if it is demonstrable that the Contributor exerted best efforts to produce the work. Nothing in this agreement obligates CurtCo Robb Media to use the work." How would you show "best efforts" in trying to produce an article? Log your time? provide all notes, which means you've handed over valuable material to people who don't seem inclined to pay for your full effort?
The publisher wants work made for hire, and if that doesn't apply (not all does, under the copyright statutes), then you assign copyright and all other rights and interests in the article. The company and its partners can do anything they want, and you don't get any extra money, even if they could turn the article into a movie deal.
They can use your name and biography "in connection with the use and exploitation of the work," but they don't guarantee you a byline.
Then you have the warranties, that the article "contains no defamatory, libelous or unlawful matter, and the exploitation of the work by CurtCo Robb Media or its affiliates, licensees, assignees, successors and partners shall not violate or infringe upon the copyright rights, rights of privacy and/or publicity, or any other statutory, common law or other rights of any party." From what I've heard, it sounds as though they won't let you add "knowingly," although a later clause does say that it must be construed under California law, so it's not like you're saying that you provide these warranties under all laws in the world, as many contracts effectively have you do.
The indemnification covers "CurtCo Robb Media and its affiliates, licensees, assignees, successors and partners" and is for "the breach or claimed breach of the foregoing representations and warranties." You aren't just indemnifying for an actual breach of the warranties, but for any claim that you've breached the warranties. That's so wide open that you are a duck sitting on a football field with hunters filling the stands.
"This Agreement contains the entire understanding and agreement between Contributor and CurtCo Robb Media, supersedes and replaces all prior agreements and understandings (oral and written) and cannot be modified or amended except by a written agreement signed by Contributor and CurtCo Robb Media. " If an editor tells you anything contrary to what the contract says, either before or after you sign it, those assurances mean nothing. This document is the sole set of rules.
From what I've heard, the company's rates aren't all that high on top of it, so you're having to give away a lot to get little. Better to get yourself to other clients.
Labels: contract, CurtCo Robb Media, review
posted by Erik Sherman | 2:24 PM
5 Comments:
Erik...
Years ago, Robb Report was notorious for paying 1/2 of the fee on acceptance and the balance of the fee 30 days after publication. Needless to say, they were usually late. What makes this worse is that the pay was meager, 50 cents a word if you could get it. I'm not sure the pay is all that better today. I can tell you that magazine is the same old piece of garbage. And the arrogancce that abounds on all leves at RR is vomit-inducing.
Ron D
I worked briefly for RR and it's other pubs. It is the oddest, most awkward, conceded (sp?), slow paced work environment ever. And yes, the arrogance is so heavy you can't get mad - you can only laugh and wonder how people take themselves so seriously. The turn over rate is high though - no one stays once they figure it out (takes a month or less)
I work on both sides of the industry -- I'm an on-staff editor and I contribute freelance articles on the side. I'm with a company that is about to launch a new online magazine as one part of its online business model, for which I oversee the content.
Confidentiality precludes me from stating too many specifics, but I've been given a small budget for original content that equates to roughly $0.15/word -- and that is after I negotiated for more money. The CEO also insists on a work-for-hire contract and wants NYTimes/Natl Geog-style quality.
Needless to say, it's been difficult to get good writers, but I've prevailed in some instances because the site is a great concept and many of the writers I've worked with in our industry in the past want to be a part of the launch.
However many of the writers who want to write for us refuse to use a work-for-hire contract, even after I've been able to renegotiate some of the rates offered.
But as a former business person and an editor, I also understand the needs of the company. We don't want articles that have been previously published, and we won't want articles we've commissioned to be resold to anyone else. We're on online pub, so the business model is different than print.
Also, it is my understanding that a writer can write about the same topic and even the same angle with a work-for-hire contract, it just needs to be written from scratch (and after a stated period of exclusivity) as opposed to being lifted directly from previously published work.
I don't see where that's a bad thing. For instance, when I travel somewhere and write about it for three different outlets, I write three unique articles geared toward each audience. The editors of those pubs don't want previously published work, nor do they allow writers to resell the article they're about to publish. It's theirs. They paid for it.
As an editor, I also want the right to refuse work that is unacceptable: meaning it doesn't fulfill the contracted obligations or it is poorly written and contains so many factual errors that we have to rewrite or give up on it anyway. Yes, both of these instances have happened. And no, I won't be hiring those writers again. (And one is a columnist for a major national publication.)
I'm getting a significantly increased budget next year, but how can I get writers to understand that a work-for-hire contract isn't necessarily the worst thing in the world?
Anon from the last post here: A couple things I forgot to mention in my previous comment:
Even though our rates are low and we use a work-for-hire contract, I insist on paying them the same month as the work is accepted (our checks get processed on the last day of each month so some people get paid the week they submit an article) and even go out of my way to make sure they have all the necessary paperwork in so payment can get processed.
They also always get bylines; and we will offer an author's page on our site for each regular contributor where they can have a bio, image, info about books they've written and want to sell, links to their own sites and other articles they've written for other sites, etc.
I know this doesn't mean much to some writers, but those that have signed on say they really appreciate it and that it does make up for some of the concessions.
I wrote not too long ago for a Curtco publication (NOT the Robb Report), and it was one of the best experiences I've ever had. The editor took a chance on a newbie by assigning a feature, then worked very closely with me to get it just right for them. I felt my first effort was so far off the mark that they had every right to kill it, but instead they invested time and effort into helping me craft what turned out to be a great story. At the pub I wrote for, the EIC and ME had been there for years -- definitely not the turnover 2smart4that talked about. And the three people I dealt with were very pleasant. I guess maybe experiences differ by magazine, even though they're under the same parent co.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home