Over on my other blog, ICT & Computing in Education, I’ve been republishing some articles which were originally published in magazines. I am able to do that because of two things.

Firstly, I offered the magazines the articles on the basis of First British Serial Rights. What that means is that I allowed the magazine to publish the article before it was published anywhere else. Once the agreed period of exclusivity is over, I can either try to sell the article somewhere else, offering them Second British Serial Rights, or publish them myself. (Similar kinds of rights may be found in other countries, for example First North American Rights).

Secondly, I negotiated a contract (with the help of the Society of Authors) by which I retain the copyright of the article. That means that if the magazine wants to make amendments to it, they can’t. Also, they can’t publish it without accrediting me as the writer.

In other words, three kinds of rights are operating here. There are the serial rights, which are to do with copyright in the context of periodicals, copyright as in ownership, and something called “moral right”, which is the right to be identified as the author. (I’m not sure if this last one exists outside the UK.)

I’d like to make a few comments here.

(It hardly needs saying that I am not a rights specialist or lawyer, so please don’t take any of this as advice, legal or otherwise. I am simply sharing what I understand to be important in the area of rights in general. )

Firstly, before agreeing to write an article for a periodical, make sure you understand the basis of the transaction. I have made mistakes in the past which now preclude me from cashing in when the magazine republishes my work. Had I been more savvy, and able to secure a better contract, I should have been in the position of being able to ask for additional payment for the republished work.

Secondly, many people offer their work on a Creative Commons basis. Depending on what version of creative commons is granted, people may be able to use your work, amend it, and even earn money from it. All very magnanimous on your part, but I discovered from a talk at the London Book Fair a few years ago that once someone has taken advantage of a Creative Commons licence, the originator of the work cannot rescind it.

What that means, I believe, can be illustrated with an example. Let’s suppose I write the definitive guide to self-publishing, and make it available on a Creative Commons basis. I choose the most restrictive kind of CC licence, which permits people to download and share the work as long as they credit me, but doesn’t allow them to reuse it in any way or make money from it.

Now let’s say that you, dear reader, download this and distribute it to all your friends, colleagues in writer groups, and anyone else you can think of. Then at some time in the future, I decide to take back all my rights and just slap an ordinary copyright notice on it instead.

My understanding is that as you downloaded the work under a CC licence, you are not affected by this change. As I can’t apply the new copyright licence to you in retrospect, and you can continue to give my guide away, how could I commercialise it if I wanted to? Or at least do so without a major rewrite so that the commercial version becomes, in effect, a new work altogether.

As I say, this is my understanding, and if I’m wrong that that would be wonderful, but the point is you need to check out this sort of thing before publishing.

Thirdly, you need to check out the rules that apply to your country, and if you’re not sure, get professional advice (which is why I recommend joining a writers’ interest group like the Society of Authors).

Fourthly, I don’t think it is wise to agree to a contract that honours your right to be identified as the author, but also allows the periodical to make changes to the article without your permission. They could put words in your mouth, or inadvertently misrepresent what you’ve said.

I think the bottom line is that it’s always worth bearing in mind that no matter how friendly the editors, at the end of the day they’re representing the magazine’s interests, not yours. This is not to say they’re nefarious: most of the editors I’ve dealt with have no more knowledge or understanding of their company’s contracts than I do. They’re just commissioning articles, editing them, and making sure the finance department knows who to pay and how much.

Besides, you have a responsibility to yourself to get the best possible deal you can — and not just in terms of money.

Related articles:

Contracts

Negotiating