Wall Street Journal to take percentage of writers' book deals

[swenk]

I thought this might be of interest here: Journal writers who expand a newspaper story into a book may have to pay Murdoch a percentage of the deal.

They're not the first, the New York Times has a similar requirement when the writer is using material that originally appeared in the paper in some form.

A scary precedent from the writer's perspective, especially if you cover a team and then want to write about anything related to the team. From the business perspective, though, it's a logical business move, since the newspaper has paid for your access and original work.

I suspect we'll see more of this.


http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080303/FREE/136100835/1084/newsletter01

Under a new Wall Street Journal policy revealed to staffers last week, authors such as Pulitzer Prize winner Daniel Golden—whose series of articles on the college admissions process led to his critically-acclaimed book, The Price of Admission—would have to fork over some of their book proceeds to none other than Rupert Murdoch himself.

In a memo sent to Journal staffers last week, and cited by the New York Observer Monday, new book-leave rules will allow the paper to snag some of the proceeds from any reporter’s book that uses research done for Journal-assigned stories. Most periodicals whose writers develop book ideas from stories do not require such a fee.

Wall Street Journal managing editor Marcus Brauchli and books director Roe D’Angelo notified reporters of the revamped book policy in a memo Thursday. Some aspects of the routine—informing editors ahead of time, using the Journal’s marketing services for book publicity— are the same, while a new stipulation says the paper will take measures to “protect [its] interest in books based on Journal reporting,” according to the Observer.

Journal spokesman Robert Christie confirmed the policy shift, saying that “in some cases,” the Journal would seek a share of the proceeds from a book that “originates with Journal reporting.” He counters that in exchange, the newspaper provides marketing and advertising support for the title.

But newsroom employees apparently aren’t convinced. Word is the paper could take as much as 10% of proceeds, though Mr. Christie denied any pre-established figures.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

I never understood how a writer could do this and take all the profits in the first place.

 

[Moland Spring]

Yeah, this policy kind of makes sense. It's almost like a writer benefiting from Marriott points gained while paying for a hotel, then being reimbursed. Oh wait...

 

[forever_town]

Isn't all newspaper content the property of the newspaper to begin with?

Makes perfect sense in that regard.

 

[Pulitzer Wannabe]

Isn't all newspaper content the property of the newspaper to begin with?

Makes perfect sense in that regard.

Legally, yes.

Seems petty, though, not to let reporters get some perks, considering what we make.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

This happens so much it isn't even funny...

 

[derwood]

Copyright holder owns rights to derived works.

 

[Pulitzer Wannabe]

Copyright holder owns rights to derived works.

Again, legally, yes. But seems like just another example of an industry intent on committing suicide by continuing to chase away its best and brightest.

 

[PeteyPirate]

Once the reporting is done, however, doesn't the information just consist of facts? Legally I don't see how a newspaper can appropriate facts that it has reported, even if they were exclusives. What I can see is claiming that someone taking a book leave should compensate the company for a loss of manpower during that period.

 

[swenk]

Just for the sake of argument, let's say you've covered a team for a decade, you know more than you could ever write in the paper. Now you decide to write a book, maybe a history or a rise-and-fall kind of thing, or a retrospective of a season. Nothing lifted directly from the paper, but same general subject.

Do you owe the paper a share of the book? They paid for your travel, got you access. Do they own everything you ever produce about this team? You're doing fresh research, fresh writing. Can the paper claim an interest in this?

 

[forever_town]

Can you base an entire book on a team you've covered completely on non story-related information? Seems to me that some element of the book will at least harken back to the stories you've written for the newspaper.

Hence, the paper probably is legally entitled to some of the proceeds.

 

[swenk]

Can you base an entire book on a team you've covered completely on non story-related information? Seems to me that some element of the book will at least harken back to the stories you've written for the newspaper.

Hence, the paper probably is legally entitled to some of the proceeds.

Is the newspaper also entitled to income from radio and TV work, if you go on the air and talk about the team you cover?

 

[forever_town]

That's a completely different issue.

 

[swenk]

Not really. If your newspaper can tell you it owns a piece of your future work because it paid you to do the original work, there are some serious lines being blurred.

Of course, I can see the business angle here; the first thing I tell my clients is GET PERMISSION (because as many of you know, permission is often denied).

I was just wondering how many of you here would be happy about paying your newspaper a percentage of your book income--I haven't met a writer yet who was okay with it.

 

[EE94]

Isn't all newspaper content the property of the newspaper to begin with?

Makes perfect sense in that regard.

Legally, yes.

Seems petty, though, not to let reporters get some perks, considering what we make.

It's not only petty, it's short-sighted.
The promotional aspect and "credibility" of having "authors" on staff outweighs the 10%.
(I'll let you figure out why they parentheses).

And often times what drives a reporter to complete a long and tedious series of stories is the thought that there might be a book in it, so the paper benefits from that incentive.

 

[deskslave]

While it kind of gives me the willies, the newspaper can easily make the argument that the only reason you had the information in the first place is because of the access gained through that paper. If you were just some schlub off the street, you'd never get that access in the first place. No access, no book.

But then again, I agree pretty much wholeheartedly with EE.

 

[Joe Williams]

Anyone who has paid attention to my posts knows that I rarely side with current newspaper practices. But in this instance, I do. I agree with deskslave, even though I always have been a writer, mostly covering pro beats and features. You have your access and your credential thanks to the position the paper has put you in. It is paying for all that research time while you're on the beat, and it is highly unlikely that you could do a book using all fresh material and keeping all reporting/writing hours separate from the first eight hours of each work day.

The promotional value of having authors on staff is dubious, and certainly intangible. If the paper wants 10 percent AND gives a boost to marketing and promotion (house ads), that's a decent deal. If the paper didn't ask for 10 percent, that's a better deal.

But we all owe our papers an honest eight, and first dibs on the results of our labor, in whatever form. That's why, unless the paper is sponsoring the radio show or TV spots, I think most of us who chase those things are cheating the day job. But that's just me.

 

[Pulitzer Wannabe]

Anyone who has paid attention to my posts knows that I rarely side with current newspaper practices. But in this instance, I do. I agree with deskslave, even though I always have been a writer, mostly covering pro beats and features. You have your access and your credential thanks to the position the paper has put you in. It is paying for all that research time while you're on the beat, and it is highly unlikely that you could do a book using all fresh material and keeping all reporting/writing hours separate from the first eight hours of each work day.

The promotional value of having authors on staff is dubious, and certainly intangible. If the paper wants 10 percent AND gives a boost to marketing and promotion (house ads), that's a decent deal. If the paper didn't ask for 10 percent, that's a better deal.

But we all owe our papers an honest eight, and first dibs on the results of our labor, in whatever form. That's why, unless the paper is sponsoring the radio show or TV spots, I think most of us who chase those things are cheating the day job. But that's just me.

People writing books are smart enough to go do a lot of things that make a lot more money than doing this. Law. Business. A lot of these people are probably in the top 1/10 of 1 percent where intelligence is concerned. And they choose to do this because they find it, for whatever reason, a fulfilling and worthwhile pursuit.

You advocate treating them like 9-to-5 workers at the factory?

I'm sorry, but you can't measure this job as putting in an "honest eight" every day. It's different. And when it ceases to be different, it'll lose those people, who will just as soon go work somewhere where their intelligence and talent is valued.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

People writing books are smart enough to go do a lot of things that make a lot more money than doing this. Law. Business. A lot of these people are probably in the top 1/10 of 1 percent where intelligence is concerned. And they choose to do this because they find it, for whatever reason, a fulfilling and worthwhile pursuit.

Really?

 

[HejiraHenry]

You can't really set Murdoch up as a straw man on this. It's the industry standard.