Editor’s Note: This blog originally appeared on Michael’s personal blog here on June 15th, 2009. It is the first of a series of posts about the subject of author compensation.
As a freelance writer, I frequently find myself concerned with the question of how much a particular piece of writing is worth. In general, the market sets the rates for writing, usually offering a few cents a word for a piece of fiction and more than that for a piece of nonfiction. We tend to expect a professional website to offer something reasonable for the use of our work, even in the Internet era of quick links and frictionless copying. My basic rule is a simple one; if the magazine or website is making money by selling advertising or access to their content, then I should be given some sort of payment for generating that content in the first place.
Even if the site isn’t making money on its own, if it serves as a loss leader for a company, I’d also expect to get paid. For example, if a TV network sets up a website to attract viewers, even if that site loses money on its own, overall the site is helping them with their bottom line. I would expect to be paid for whatever I provide them, just like they pay studios for the programs they broadcast.
So I was intrigued by this article I read in the New York Times this morning: Use Their Work Free? Some Artists Say No to Google. Google has invited dozens of prominent artists to contribute work that they will feature on their new Web browser, Chrome, and when some of the artists asked how much they would be paid for their art, the answer was nothing. Google released a statement in which they said that while they don’t usually offer money for the use of the art in the browser, they feel that they would be giving the artists an opportunity to display their work in front of millions of people.
In other words, no money, but think of the exposure!
How I have come to hate that word.
A few years ago, someone whose name I won’t mention wanted to reprint one of my stories in a booklet that a nonprofit organization planned to distribute to a variety of synagogues across the United States. I had passed along the story at the request of a mutual friend, and he was so excited by the story that he really wanted others to read it and be as moved by it as he was.
But when he asked if he could reprint the story, his first words were to tell me that he wouldn’t pay anything, but he could offer me “exposure.” It rankled me to hear that. He wouldn’t consider not paying the costs of printing the booklets or distributing them, but when it came to the content, he didn’t seem to grasp why it was so wrong to offer no compensation at all.
The irony here is that in this particular case I really didn’t want a reprint fee, just respect. Had the guy approached me and asked what the reprint fee would have been – or even if he had said something like we don’t have a large budget for this project but I can give you $10 – I would have replied thank you for asking, but for your cause I’m willing to let you have it for free.
This is not to say that I wouldn’t write something and offer it for no charge. I’ve written for fanzines before, and I would never think of charging them for an article, because that’s not how the model works. (Also, fanzine editors make it clear from the outset that they’re not a paying market.) I don’t get paid for my blog posts, obviously, as this blog is my communication with friends and fans. (I do keep a small link on the side of the front page to a PayPal button, because I don’t want to deny someone the choice of making a donation if they’d like, but I don’t push very hard for donations.)
And this is not to say that I don’t write for “exposure” sometimes. The difference, though, is that when I write for “exposure” I’m doing it on my own terms. I’m choosing to provide articles or stories for friends or for partners, and usually there’s an added quid pro quo that is no one’s business but my own.
What bothers me most of all is that people who believe their own industry is of value often think nothing of asking writers to provide work for free. Or think we should be happy if our work gets distributed without permission. A few months ago, a friend of mine who is in one of the professional fields suggested that I should be happy if a story of mine got copied over and over on the Internet and earned me millions of readers. After all, isn’t that what a writer wants, to be read?
Well, yes. But a writer also wants to be paid. Does a lawyer offer all of his or her services for free? Would a doctor be happy to not draw a fee and simply treat people without payment?
Would you be willing to do your own job for no payment?
I think the executives at Google who made this offer of “exposure” to artists need to answer that question for themselves.
Michael A. Burstein won the 1997 Campbell Award. His short fiction, mostly in Analog, has been nominated for ten Hugos and three Nebulas. He and wife Nomi live in Brookline, Massachusetts, where he is a Library Trustee and Town Meeting Member. He has two physics degrees, and attended Clarion. See http://www.mabfan.com.
In November, 2008, Apex Publications released Michael’s first collection of stories titled I Rememeber the Future: The Award-Nominated Stories of Michael A. Burstein.
Photo credit: Nomi S. Burstein
Related posts:
- Apex Magazine April edition now available
- Apex Magazine welcomes guest editor Michael A. Burstein
- I REMEMBER THE FUTURE Wins The Chronic Rift’s Roundtable Award For BEST ANTHOLOGY!
APEXOLOGY: Horror
Dear Michael Burstein: This article is very true to form; and an excellent summary as to the many legal problems facing writers, artists, etc., on the net today.
If I wanted “exposure” I would go outside in my -70 degree Celcius Canadian winter undressed and shivering and wait for two things to happen; neither of these events are positive events, unfortunately, but that is exactly the same as the treatment given to artists/writers and creators of all kinds on the net today; Here is what will happen to me if I let this problem slide; either I will;
1. freeze to death or
2. get a deadly dose of impending pnemonia caused by the obvious ill-will rather than the supposed goodwill created by the net administrator policy or non-policy of artists/creators today. These nefarious powers that be “not for artists” or creators of any kind. The malicious and callous “freeze out” of artist’s rights is not going unnoticed. Artists/writers/creators of all kinds are being tragically compromised to the point of making artists etc., persons non-grata, without any effectual legal rights whatsoever. So how did this dismantling of the creative power be destroyed in this way by net policy?
It simply is this; there are no agencies to protect the mass interest of artists/writers/creators on the net, no umbrella organization to protect all creative endeavors, so the artists, etc. suffer the slight of being virtually ignored, removed from the equation of all rights and priviledges.
The net administration policy smooth operations convincingly seduced artists to accept the idea that “exposure” of their art will be tantemount to
success. The promise of exposure is therefore a hollow promise, offering of crumbs to the artist, etc., who already have had enough of that menu.
Offering artists the supposed “benefit” of exposure could only work for those non-professional artists, writers, etc., who do not mind being pushed into a corner, but definitely not the corner office on 5th Avenue. Such trojan horse-type offeringsby net administration only stokes the fires of the artists’, writers’ etc.,discontent. Certainly an artists’/writers’ revolt is long overdue; but when, how?
The many artists/creators/orginators of protected and copyrighted material do not fathom the depths of these slick power lords of the net.
It has taken a great deal of cold blue steel resolve by net administration to so skilfully to stealthily slink undetected through the naive artists’/writers’ garden of net worthy art. This feigned gesture of goodwill by the net administrators is laughable by those who are armed with the knowledge of true copyright laws, which should allow the clause “all forms of media; electronic ect” to hold any weight of merit and benefit to artists, etc. intrinsic rights.
The wholly nasty net administrators who do not want artists, etc looking behind the screen at their dastardly deeds will stop at nothing to remove all rights of potential income earners. Artists, etc., are being denied their rights, and it is all due to faulty policy made by net administrators who do not want to give the creators of said copyright their just desserts. Artists of all kinds deserve better treatment!
Artists et al hardly notice the slight of hand, the magician’s power wand vanquishing and vanishing their power base. Most artists, etc today are unknowing living with the potential damage being done to them. Is is not only artists, but the artistic process as well which is under fire by net administrator’s lack of adequate copyright laws on the net.
Indeed the admins actions could eventually create the same snare set for the artists. As work submitted will now be a lowly quality since no value is placed upon the artists’ intrinsic worth. The freedom to create is usurped by lack of resources it takes to create and maintain the artist and their rightful livelihood.
Yes, the bohemoth net is wholly unfair to the struggling artists/writers. The net policy concerning copyright laws is woefully biased and one-sided.
Artists and writers need to be compensated adequately for their creative art and should not be finagled by those who do not have the artists/writers best interest at heart. Who will protect the best interests of the artists/writers on the net? Any net heroes out there?