Paul Wells has a post up concerning a news release issued by The Periodical Writers Association of Canada. It seems the group is in contract negotiations with Canada's largest media conglomerate, CanWest Global, and is just a tad upset at the employer's demands. I can't imagine why.
According to the contract, creators will give the media giant "the right to exclusively use and exploit the Content in any manner and in any and all media, whether now known or hereafter devised, throughout the universe, in perpetuity."
Apparently this isn't a joke. Nor is this:
PWAC is also taking issue with a clause that demands freelancers waive "in favour of CanWest and its assigns, all 'moral rights.'" Moral rights defend the creator's right to have their name attached to their work, and to not have it edited in a way that changes its meaning.
So in the world according to CanWest, if you're a writer selling to them you have no assurance that they won't a) change the meaning of your work and make it appear that it's what you intended to say or b) fail to credit you entirely. You're just a cog in the grand media machine. Be thankful you get paid at all.
This is further evidence that the original point of the way we protect intellectual capital* is lost on the very people who are gaining more and more control over it. The point is no longer to protect the creators and it's certainly not to protect the long term health of the commons. The point now is to protect the interests of those with the deepest pockets.
* Yes, I've adopted Stirling Newberry's meme.
Update:
I misunderstood. The contract described above isn't a proposal from CanWest, it's a contract that's already in use. Straight Goods got wind of this, contacted our largest media company, and got this response:
"I determined that the form that you emailed to me is indeed a form that is used by CanWest," said Geoffrey Elliot, Corporate VP for CanWest. "It's not the only form that is used with freelancers, but it does reflect company thinking. We are a multimedia company and we need to be certain that we can use content across all our media platforms. A freelancer who does not like the contract may choose not to write for CanWest."
Of course if CanWest continues to gobble up the competition, pretty soon a freelancer won't have much choice.
I can't remember the details, but wasn't there a story a few months ago about the National Post revising news agency stories to delete any perceived "anti-Israel" content? I wonder if it is related to this contract.
This story has deeper roots, going back to a legal action first brought against the Globe and Mail in the late 1990s, technically by writer Heather Robertson and others -- but really, they are more or less PWAC.
As I understand it, the agreement that the Globe has been trying to enforce with its freelancers is nothing like as extreme or sheerly bizarre as the CanWest one you quote, pogge -- in the universe?!? change its meaning?!? -- but it would mean that the Globe controlled all reprint rights, would essentially take over copyright.
Some preliminary stage of that suit has just been settled, but the case itself has still to be heard in full. I find the law involved impenetrable, so I'm waiting for PWAC or some nice lawyer to simplify it all for us. But I assume that the Globe's example has inspired other greedy publishers to misuse the power they undoubtedly have over impoverished writers in any way they can in the interim.
This story has deeper roots, going back to a legal action first brought against the Globe and Mail in the late 1990s, technically by writer Heather Robertson and others -- but really, they are more or less PWAC.
As I understand it, the agreement that the Globe has been trying to enforce with its freelancers is nothing like as extreme or sheerly bizarre as the CanWest one you quote, pogge -- in the universe?!? change its meaning?!? -- but it would mean that the Globe controlled all reprint rights, would essentially take over copyright.
Some preliminary stage of that suit has just been settled, but the case itself has still to be heard in full. I find the law involved impenetrable, so I'm waiting for PWAC or some nice lawyer to simplify it all for us. But I assume that the Globe's example has inspired other greedy publishers to misuse the power they undoubtedly have over impoverished writers in any way they can in the interim.