How Corporate News Media Fleece Freelancers
Presenting a contract after publication is tantamount to offering a corpse medicine.
Photo: Pexel
To be a freelance writer is to constantly brace oneself for a litany of trials ranging from late payments to rejected pitches to crooked publications that push bank charges on to freelancers. And if that isn’t enough hassle, they also have to keep an eye out for crafty publications with designs on their copyrights.
In news media, freelancers can expect to work for publications with or without a contract. In the latter scenario, a rate is usually offered before work begins and freelancers not only keep their copyrights intact but are spared the trouble of parsing pages of fine print. However, such informal arrangements carry risks as editors have been known to renege on payment for published work or terminate assignments in progress without paying with a kill fee, a fraction of the originally agreed sum paid to compensate for time and effort.
In the event contracts are issued, publications typically demand that freelancers license or cede entirely their copyrights which entitles creatives to authorship, distribution, reproduction, and remuneration among other things over their material. As such, rights owners can object to alterations to the material upon publication, forgo the right to be credited as the creator, or charge publishers for syndicating or translating the work. They can also sue for breach of contract, say if publishers infringe on copyrights or terminate a project without compensation, and publishers are also able to enforce their end of the agreement.
But within these clearly demarcated ecosystems exist chimeras, publications that want to have their cake and eat it. They wish to enjoy option of reneging on informal agreements while seeking to reap the benefits from imposing contractual obligations on unsuspecting creatives.
“To be a freelance writer is to constantly brace oneself for a litany of trials ranging from late payments to rejected pitches to crooked publications that push bank charges on to freelancers.”
Case in point, three days after The Independent published my opinion piece, they sent an email linking to their terms and conditions that I’d automatically accepted by virtue of their publishing my work. To be sure, prior correspondence with the editor revolved around pay and submission deadline. At no point was a contract mentioned, which made The Independent’s attempt to enforce one after the fact ring duplicitous.
Consequently, with my request to renegotiate some of the terms denied, the piece was removed from their website. While I didn’t object to the deletion, it was vexing that The Independent didn’t want to pay for the story that had by then sat on their website for a week.
It wasn’t until my third email to the chief editor and group managing editor, reminding them that refusing to pay for work done amounted to slavery and warning they wouldn’t enjoy my next course of action, did I finally receive a response confirming payment. For good measure, I’d attached a snapshot of a Twitter user claiming The Independent had still not paid for a story they published in 2018 despite reminders and the experience had put them off writing for publications.
Sadly, The Independent isn’t the first or only publication accosting freelancers with contracts after publication. CNN apparently deploys the same tactic, as confirmed by my and two other freelancers’ experiences. Once again, the commissioning editor said nothing about their contract even as they saw it fit to ask I source for historical images from my contacts, a rather odd request being that CNN has the wherewithal to readily obtain those photos from Getty Images or other photo suppliers. Also, it was unclear if the editor wanted the photos for free since compensation wasn’t mentioned, and since I didn’t want to explain to sources why CNN won’t pay or act as a mediator negotiating payment and terms of use for their photos, I didn’t bother sourcing any.
Unlike The Independent that emailed a link to a fait accompli contract, the CNN contract came in document format. It included a kill fee, a useless provision as the contract was provided after publication and wasn’t indicated in earlier conversation with the editor, a ploy to save CNN money at the contributor’s expense should they scrap finished or ongoing work. Because the contract contained general and specific conditions, with the later referencing a dummy purchase order, I’d expected to receive an individualised version with the information I subsequently provided, especially since an email from CNN explicitly stated they would a purchase order. Also, from previous experience managing contracts for a recruitment firm, I knew that dummy purchase orders accompanying general conditions were a stand in to be reissued with renegotiated terms specific to a particular work or person.
“Rabid capitalism drives large publications.”
With that in mind, I signed off on the general terms of the contract with a mental note to request the necessary amendments to the terms when CNN issued the personalised purchase order. But it wasn’t to be. Instead of a purchase order, I received a blank invoice with a fine print at the bottom to complete. An email to CNN demanding they issue purchase order with the modified the terms and condition yielded an email stating modifications were impossible since I hadn’t discuss them prior with the editor. They also explained purchase orders weren’t issued to online contributors, admitting they erred earlier in mentioning I’d receive one.
After multiple emails back and forth—and several weeks after my story was published—CNN agreed to rescind the contract that would have otherwise granted it, among other things, all moral rights (that is the right to claim authorship and alter the piece as they wish), profits derived from or incidental to the story, and all intellectual property rights. They would also have had the right to exploit the work without any royalties to me.
Rabid capitalism drives large publications like CNN and The Independent to ambush freelancers upon publishing their work with contracts that offer a pittance for copyrights. It’s the disease that deludes wealthy news organisations into demanding additional gains from freelancers’ derivative work, like published books, while accruing profits from syndicated material and the like without remunerating creatives.
Due to existing power differentials existing, media companies that spring up contracts after the fact can pressure freelancers into relinquishing their rights to future profits without commensurate payments because freelancers fear raising objections or rejecting invidious contracts could imperil future assignments or even compensation for the current one.
That international media firms don’t see that by cheating and impoverishing freelancers they hurt themselves is laughable. After all, these publications rely on non-staff writers for stories and perspectives from around the world that their staff can’t cover either due to physical absence or lack of contextual knowledge. In other words, freelancers enrich global news publications, adding scope and variety to daily news offerings. Frustrating them out of business via rights grab and meagre compensation or none at all will no doubt leave a wider chasm in journalism, one that newsrooms worldwide already struggle to bridge.
While writing this piece, I checked The Independent’s terms and conditions for contributors and noticed extensive updates. One clause now bars contributors from publicly airing grievances. But whether management plans to promptly address said complaints or advise commissioning editors to notify writers of their so-called contractual obligations prior to engagement remains moot.
You May Also Like
