April 26, 2008
“You’re in the Mail on Sunday!” gibbers Big A.
I am taken aback. Fearing some sort of expose regarding the chickens, I hurry over to his place to investigate…
Hm. I drop a note to John Wellington, who is the Mail on Sunday’s Managing Editor. It reads:
‘Dear Mr Wellington,
On page 74 of the March 16th issue of ‘The Mail on Sunday’ you published a 392-word piece headlined ‘Blog of the Week – Adventures of a family man who gave up his high-powered job and moved to rural Norfolk’.
The piece (in its entirety) consisted of copyrighted articles lifted without my knowledge or consent from a website for which I am the registered owner…
[bit more blah, yours sincerely, etc.]‘
Not having worked for the Mail on Sunday before, and a stated wordage figure proving elusive, I pluck a conservative amount out of the air and stick it on the bottom of an invoice, which goes off via the kind auspices of the G.P.O. To the Mail on Sunday’s credit, they pay me my two hundred quid quicker than most biggish companies would, and John Wellington sends me his (what I am sure are sincere) apologies.
There’s nothing quite so Rikfromtheyoungonesesque about people with blogs getting on their high horse about print journalists, except perhaps print journalists getting on their high horse about people with blogs. Clearly, however, there’s a little bit of a mutual-understanding issue here. I always go for cock-up over conspiracy, but one paragraph of his reply to me does seem a bit… a bit not quite fitting in with what I thought things were about.
‘We generally take the view that blogs published on the internet have already been placed in the public domain by their authors and, in case of amateur writers, most people are happy to have their work recognised and displayed to a wider audience.’
Discuss.
April 26, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Cheeky f**ckers! (spoken as an editor myself!)
April 26, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I don’t know which is worse: the fact that your copyright got ripped off; or that you were printed in the Mail on Sunday.
April 26, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Does that mean that any articles that are printed in a newspaper, are now effectively in the public domain and we are therefore free to rip them off in return?
April 26, 2008 at 4:07 pm
500/1000 is a conservative amount? No wonder I used to get so much work.
April 26, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Bastards!
April 26, 2008 at 4:30 pm
John Wellington did exactly the same thing, several years ago, to Mil Millington:
http://thingsmygirlfriendandihavearguedabout.com/mil_support/
April 26, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Crafty buggers.
That does apply to MySpace, but not, as far as I am aware, to anywhere else.
April 26, 2008 at 5:01 pm
You got published in a Red Top? Oh, the shame!
April 26, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Thanks for that link Jim - interesting. I said my figure was ‘conservative’…
Not quite the same scenario, as his was a blatant case of both theft and passing off. So I think the figure the MoS settled for was pretty fair. On balance, however, that case does make me look less kindly on the ‘we didn’t think we were doing anything wrong’ defence.
April 26, 2008 at 5:07 pm
What on EARTH is this ‘possibly related posts’ thing that WordPress is automatically inserting above the comments?!?
April 26, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Clair - a question indeed. As lots of bloggers do that, which I don’t agree with.
But of course there is no such thing as ‘bloggers’. Just ‘people who have blogs’.
I guess my question is - WOULD people be grateful/interested in the extra exposure. I know what I THINK the answer is (in general). A few years back I would have KNOWN the answer (in general). But I don’t know much about blogs these days, so - over to you lot.
April 26, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Aha!!! I have solved the ‘possibly related posts’ thing. There was a setting, which had been sneakily enabled. I suspect it was this that caused the site to run very slowly yesterday, as reported by some people.
The setting is now de-set.
April 26, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Adventures of a family man who gave up his high-powered job
“high-powered job”?
“family man”??
“Adventures”???
Ha! Who knew the Mail could be so funny…
April 26, 2008 at 5:34 pm
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=527_1205782611
You could’ve been much meaner.
April 26, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Cheeky sods.
April 26, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Actually a “friend” of mine got into a load of trouble at work because of his blog’s “extra exposure” in e-health insider.
April 26, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Did they say “amateur”?
It’s a bloody liberty.
April 26, 2008 at 9:41 pm
“500/1000 is a conservative amount? No wonder I used to get so much work.”
Yes, Mail basic rate is £1 per one word.
But Jebus, after the number of people they’ve tried this on (Coppersblog et al) you’d think they knew by now.
April 26, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I make no money from my blog, and if I do post a comment or paragraph from another, it truly is for discussion purposes.
If the Mail received money for the advertisers on the page in question, you deserve a cut, plain and simple.
“Smithers, release the hounds!”
April 26, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Try using the same “public domain” defence against Getty Images and see where that gets you.
Personally I would have liked to have decked the bastard for calling me an amateur.
April 26, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Oh!
I guess they did it just so they might get a mention on your PSD.
Looks rather like you’ve fallen straight into their cunning trap Jonny.
I feel sure a Wellington (or Big W) ought to feature in the blog somewhere. ” I push my foot to the bottom of the Wellington…”
April 26, 2008 at 11:24 pm
‘most people are happy to have their work recognised and displayed to a wider audience’ IS NOT the same as ‘most people are happy to have their used for the commercial advantage of a large corporation in return for nothing but recognition and potential display to a wider audience’.
Cheeky buggers, but at least they paid up when requested.
April 26, 2008 at 11:28 pm
“I generally take the view that professional journalists paid to produce original content for highly popular national dailies ought to be capable of reading and understanding a clearly displayed copyright notice when they see one.”
(£20.)
April 27, 2008 at 12:44 am
I will boycott the Mail on Sunday in support of your cause, Jonny. Actually, I’ve never ever bought the tawdry, hateful, rag, but I’ll not allow any of my chips to be wrapped in it or any animal cage that I’m in charge of to be lined with it.
Cheeky gits.
April 27, 2008 at 2:45 am
I’m with Jonners. I too shall boycott the MoS in your name.
And the next time I buy their organ I shall reprint various articles because a) it’s in the public domain and b) must surely be the product of amateur writers…
April 27, 2008 at 7:09 am
For a minute, I thought it was going to be an expose on your chicken-love.
Amateur? I’d sue ‘em for that Jonny.
April 27, 2008 at 7:37 am
Amateur indeed. Don’t they KNOW WHO I AM???
Tim - is that Daily Mail or the On Sunday version? I’m not greatly bothered about the figure (and I deliberately kept it realistic to be pragmatic - the fact that they paid me SOMETHING was the issue, rather than the amount).
For clarity - this seems to be a regular feature. A number of posts lifted from a blog, with the url at the bottom. No attempt to disguise what it is, but no introduction/critical comment either.
So again, not quite along the Coppersblog debacle - - but page filler, nonetheless.
April 27, 2008 at 8:52 am
Ummmmm. So, if I get this correctly, you were NOT (a.) naked, (b.) stoned, (c.) drunk, (d.) a member of the Royal Family partying in a Nazi uniform (e.) caught doing anything at all with Paris Hilton, or (f.) a convicted serial sex offender taking a child care center to court for refusing to give you a job.
And you still got into The Mail on Sunday.
Uh…
I’m going to have to start reading your blog more often.
REG CROWDER
Freelance Business Journalist
London, UK & Brittany, UK
“We have met the enemy and he is us,” Pogo.
http://www.RegCrowder.com
April 27, 2008 at 8:56 am
Well, of course, at the bottom of my comment I meant to say:
REG CROWDER
Freelance Business Journalist
London, UK & Brittany, France
even though it IS easier to get to central London from France than it is from most of the UK.
April 27, 2008 at 9:43 am
In which universe shall I be grateful that someone copied my work instead of hiring me to do their work? That paternalistic nod and a pat on the head, oooh how I want to return with a knee to the groin.
April 27, 2008 at 9:44 am
Just sounds like lazy journalism to me… the MoS are buggars.
April 27, 2008 at 10:01 am
They won’t lift from you again now that they’ve made you a professional.
April 27, 2008 at 11:13 am
Okay, far be it from me to go against the prevailing spirit, but I’d like for just a moment to put the chicken amongst the foxes. Oh, wait a minute, sorry Jonny - I meant cat among the pigeons.
Seven and a half months ago, my site was featured as the main ‘internet’ selection in The Guardian’s Saturday ‘Guide’. It’s taken me that long - and this post - to realise that whilst they didn’t use any of my text, they did include a very prominent picture of one of my ’stationery scribbles’. Yes, I probably should have cared more at the time, but to be honest I was too busy jumping up and down, screaming “THE GUARDIAN LOVES ME! THE GUARDIAN LOVES ME!”
I did write to The Guardian in response to being featured in their pages - not to ask for credit or payment for them using my material, but to thank the journalist who reviewed my site for his kind words in review.
So was I some kind of idiot for doing so?
I hate to say it, but as much as I see your point, Jonny, I have a feeling that many of the previous thirty-odd commenters would have reacted in the same way as me if they had received some national press attention. Yes, of course it’s terrible that they use our content without first asking permission or, later, offering payment. But most of us - many of us, I suspect - would just relish a bit of exposure. It’s almost the silent truth that dare not speak its name.
Mind you, you do have my sympathies for it being the Mail on Sunday. Screw ‘em for every right-wing penny they’re worth, I say!
April 27, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Ah. Yes. So basically what they did was write some editorial about your website and print an example of what you did. Like a review, and a positive one an’ that. I remember it well, and I was dead pleased for you.
I have felt chuffed when that has happened in the past also. I guess - as you say - many of the people here would have as well.
Sorry - I don’t see what it has to do with reprinting your blog to provide an unpaid space filler, however.
April 27, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Sorry - for ‘chuffed’ read ‘really, really chuffed’. Everybody loves a good review. Thank you to any reviewers who are still reading this.
April 27, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Ooooops - almost forgot. Hullo Reg Crowder, and welcome!!! And Deptford Dame (I think, if you are new to the comments, if not I apologise as I have totally lost track now)
April 27, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Actually, something I wrote got a mention in Kate Muir’s column once, but it wasn’t a review or a wholesale theft. She said “Oh, I read this thing by Katy Newton”… and then sort of went off and talked about something related.
I was quite pleased about it, but I think I’d have been considerably less pleased if she’d lifted the post in question, put it in column format and stuck her name at the bottom, I must admit.
April 27, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Can someone explain please?
I don’t understand this post. If someone quotes your blog they have to pay you money?
And you go after them if they don’t?
I write mine as a sort of personal therapy, and none of it is ever remotely worth printing in a national, or even local, paper. I wouldn’t give a monkey’s if it was reproduced, anywhere.
But Jonny B’s gone after someone who printed his, and everyone is behind him? So I guess that means that JB’s blog is intended as a kind of online novel (with publishing rights), rather than an online, personal journal?
So how does The Law differentiate between Private Blogs (mine) which are written to get personal thoughts out of the head, and Private Secret Blogs (JB) which seem - now - to be written for profit? Whether the profit is immediate, or maybe in a few years when written as a sit-com…
But where is the dividing line?
Someone explain please?
April 27, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Jonny are you going to get a copy of the article for your chickens to crap on? I think that would be sweet revenge……..
April 27, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Long time lurker- I like your … vignettes.
I think if since you’re paying for hosting/bandwidth your work isn’t in the public domain.
If you were using blogger or another free service it would become the property of the hosting service- I seem to recall reading about this in one of my PC magazines and users being outraged that their work was no longer their own.
April 27, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Eddie 2 Sox- It’s the copyright.
And I may be mistaken, but I believe the phrase “private blog” is an oxymoron.
April 27, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Thanks “hey bartender”.
As you quoted my name, you owe me £15, ta.
April 27, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Bugger. I quoted YOUR name. I owe you £15 too.
Let’s call it quits.
April 27, 2008 at 10:09 pm
But my own name, Eddie 2-Sox, appeared too. I owe myself £15?
April 28, 2008 at 3:50 am
By such reasoning entire libraries full of bound volumes are in the “public domain”. Owning a printing press hardly makes one the owner of everyone elses intellectual property. Bastards!
April 28, 2008 at 4:03 am
let me try and put it this way, commenter #38, 42,43, 44:
“mail on sunday” is a newspaper which people pay to read. they employ people to write stuff and the writers get paid because people buy the newspaper.
nobody pays you to write your blog (never mind the reasons you write it) and assuming you have no advertising on it, you receive no advertising revenue either. aside from paying an internet connection fee, nobody pays to access it either.
but suppose someone from a magazine decided to publish one of your entries and give you credit for the column - same as they do for the writers that are paid to work on that magazine - except that they don’t pay you anything for it. the magazine makes money from your column, since now people pay to read it. is it fair that magazine writers get paid and you don’t, given that you’ve both done the same work?
to exaggerate a bit, suppose i scoured the internet for popular blogs and printed all the entries i found interesting, made it all in a literary supplement and sold it at bookshops. i would get all the money from the sales and the writers would just get publicity. mind you, the only work i did was to rummage through blogs and pick out the ones i liked.
in the above scenario, is it fair that i receive all the money, given that i wouldn’t have anything to sell were it not for the blog writers?
April 28, 2008 at 5:24 am
Don’t forget Petit Anglais who ended up with a book deal. This sort of publicity could lead to some such thing for you perhaps. I often find portions of my blog, or at least my link, on many other blogs without my permission. I think it is sort of a friendly blogger type thing to do. I wrote about an attack of killer caterpillars in my garden and found myself quoted in the Arkansas Retirement Home site. It made me feel rather old. Not that I am.
April 28, 2008 at 7:29 am
no, not without your prior say so - what about your banjo playing, did they promote it? what about your skill in DIY, did they praise it? I think not!
The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday are wankers… and so say all of us!
April 28, 2008 at 7:29 am
oh yeah, but you could get A Book Deal ?
April 28, 2008 at 8:11 am
Yes - Kermit has it.
I certainly respect Eddie’s, Linda’s and AUW’s point of view - the reason that I wrote the post wasn’t because I was in some state of high dudgeon, but because I was intrigued as to whether there WERE people with blogs who would be happy for this to happen and essentially agreed with the MoS’s stance that whatever the legal situation ‘all publicity is good publicity’. So although they’re in the minority, that is perfectly all right with me!
It would be easier if I had a screengrab I know - but (one more) clarification: this wasn’t a ‘review’, or ‘me being mentioned’, or ’some quotes’. It was an article that consisted solely of complete blog posts lifted from this site. Nothing else. Just complete blog posts lifted from this site.
As I say, I’m not on my high horse, and now we’ve settled financially the matter is closed between us. I do think it’s an interesting discussion point, though. If not as interesting as the chickens.
April 28, 2008 at 8:30 am
Wow! Reg Crowder! The REAL Reg Crowder. I’ve heard of him!
April 28, 2008 at 10:03 am
Just to clarify the copyright issue. In the UK (and some other countries) as soon as you write something you own the copyright. It doesn’t matter if it’s a journal of your innermost thoughts or a short story you are hoping to sell, you own the copyright. And it doesn’t matter where you write it - a diary you keep under your bed, a book or on the internet - you still own the copyright. You don’t even have to put the copyright symbol on it. It’s yours.
“In the public domain” is a complete non-defence in this case. Just because it’s on the internet it’s not in the public domain any more than the books in my local library are in the public domain. As has been proven in many libel cases the internet is little different to any other medium as far as publishing laws go. In this case there is also a copyright symbol to reinforce this point; to be public domain it would have to be labelled as such.
And unless you give them permission, no one has the right to copy that material. There is only one major “fair use” exception and that is for use in criticism or comment. So if someone writes a review of a book (or a website) it’s fine to quote parts of it in the context of the review. It’s also OK to parody a work (but not use it to satirise something else). But lifting a piece in its entirety and putting nothing else with it is a complete no-no, even before you get to the “they’re making money out of it” and “they’d have paid someone else for that slot, so they should pay Jonny” arguments.
The internet has undoubtedly made this more complex - are search engines infringing copyright when they index entire web pages or provide thumbnails of pictures? And what about the current JK Rowling case where she only sued when the website was turned into a book? But in Jonny’s case this is 100% infringement, with a laughable defence of “public domain”, hence the speedy resolution. It was a particularly cynical and lazy act of page-filling, but I’m guessing not that rare.
But I do look forward to next Sunday’s “My Chicken Shame”.
April 28, 2008 at 10:12 am
I’m rushing, I haven’t read all the comments as yet…but, to what Clair #3 says, and to your comment #11…yes, but, isn’t the newspaper making money with your words? Which then, doesn’t make it right for them to quote you without your permission.
April 28, 2008 at 11:09 am
It’s lazy and discourteous. Asking permission is so easy and most of us wouldn’t say no. Taking the piss just makes matters worse.
A while back my partner was asked if she would contribute some articles for a website. She went on the site to have a look round and saw a poorly plagiarised version of one of her own “free-issue” articles sitting there, ones she allows to be used on condition that she’s credited with a link. The only concessions she allows towards a re-write are local environment changes - spelling, idioms etc. There was no credit and what’s more, it had been re-written by someone with a terrible grasp of English even though it was still recognisably hers as the thief had made no changes to the structure. Naturally she was annoyed but by this time the webmaster had given her his address, an act of folly on his part that filled us with glee because out of the whole wide world, he lived half a mile away. Needless to say, he pulled not only the article but the site.
April 28, 2008 at 11:10 am
Every time I read that’amateur writers’ bit I fume. For too long ‘amateur writers’ have been exploited and done the dirty to by unscrupulous editors.
I wonder what his definition of a pro is? Some one who earns their living by writing? That disqualifies a hell of a lot of gifted writers. I think what they did is inexcusable. Absolutely!
April 28, 2008 at 11:58 am
Will the money be used to replace chicken #4? You could buy a rooster at the weekend and call it ‘Male on Sunday’.
April 28, 2008 at 1:00 pm
What Salvadore Vincent said (#52).
Especially the bit about “My chicken Shame”.
April 28, 2008 at 1:34 pm
They seem to do this a lot, and rarely, if ever, seem to credit or tell the author they’re about to do so, happened to the lovely Jo earlier this month: http://sleepingeyes.blogspot.com/2008/04/mail-on-sunday-blog-of-week.html
April 28, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Believe it or not, newspapers know exactly what they are and are not entitled to do and when they’ve been rumbled. Anyone who doubts that the MoS knew it was a fair cop should consider the speed with which it handed over the £200 (and yes, they would have withheld it if they thought they were entitled to).
April 28, 2008 at 2:07 pm
well, duh. anythingin the public domain is for everyone to use and make money off of at will. silly.
April 28, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Yes - Salvadore Vincent provides a masterclass in the legal situation, from one who knows.
Pat has got an interesting point. A lot of bloggers I know wholly or partially earn their living from writing (whether as a direct or indirect result of blogging or not). I think what HASN’T changed in the - yuk - ‘blogosphere’ is that they have always had immense respect for the skills of people who write just for the love of it. As do I.
April 28, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I’m with Clunky Johnny, let the chickens shit on the article - it will be very cathartic - then send it along to W…Wally with a copy of Salvadore’s insight so at least next time he might consider contacting you first.
Struggling writer and blogette Jules Ritter
April 28, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Thanks for that link, handlewithcare. Yes - interesting. One person who is chuffed to bits, and one person who is pissed off (but thinks that there is nothing that she can do about it).
April 29, 2008 at 8:53 am
Spend your earnings wisely young man.
£200 will more than cover the snuffed chicken. You could treat them to a coup extension and expand the (insert word like ‘flock’ that is applicable to chickens).
Erm, how can they label you amateur in a covering letter accompanying their pament of your invoice???
Chin chin
April 29, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Sorry to come in so late - I was outside doing some concreting.
And now I’ve dusted off my publisher’s hat to give you the copyright masterclass, only to see that Salvadore Vincent got in ahead of me.
Well done for having the nous to chase the money. Maybe you should suggested that if they like your copy so much you could write a weekly column for them.
How are the chickens? One of mine went broody this week, so I dumped her in a bucket of water. (I have it on good authority that it cools her down and reverses shocks her system back into normality. I will wait and see.)
No I didn’t let the chickens walk on the concrete!
April 30, 2008 at 2:03 am
“Male on Sunday”. Oh. My. God. That’s good shit.
What’s up with no link, Steve? You obviously have skills.
April 30, 2008 at 8:20 am
I would then start a new blog taking all te articles out of the daily mail and placing them on the internet. After all they are in the public domain…
While I would be quite chuffed to have my blogs hit the press I have to admit I would like the to ask me first, and compensate me slightly for my work which they will effectively be selling on to other people.
April 30, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I was blog of the week about 3 weeks ago. I wasn’t told, and found out completely by fluke when one of my readers told me.
I was pleased to see it in print but pissed off that
1) it was edited and taken out of context
2) they hadn’t asked me permission
3) they hadn’t told me
Not only is it curteous to let someone know if you’re using their work, it’s also very disconcerting that something you happily release into the internet domain is then put into another medium, which is available to a whole new set of people.
Seeing as it doesn’t seem to increase stats or do anything apart from give you a slight glow at seeing your writing in print (albeit edited), you get nothing out of it. They, on the other hand, do.
I only wish I’d had the forsight to charge them, too! I just emailed a ranty letter.
Funnily enough, after my email they said they’d address my concern about not letting bloggers know…clearly, they haven’t. Not that I’m surprised. http://sleepingeyes.blogspot.com/2008/04/reply-from-mail-on-sunday.html
May 1, 2008 at 5:35 am
1. believe it or not, mention in the print media does little to drive traffic to your site, so I wouldn’t take the “honored” bit too seriously.
2. They paid up for their copyright infringement–recognizing that you are, in fact, the legal owner of your works, and even without the little “circled c” you always were.
3. Since you’ve been paid, that in effect makes you a professional and this blog a business. If you cash the check (cheque?) you a. owe tax on the income and b. better form an LLC quick, fast, and in a hurry, with all the licenses that apply to a business.
4. If you don’t cash the check, you’ve great grounds for a lawsuit–as they recognized (albeit after the fact) that your works were yours, not theirs, and they stole from you. If a thief steals your wallet, shares your money with his friends, and pays you only for the use of your wallet, he’s still guilty of theft. By accepting their money, you are agreeing to their practice, and the words become theirs, not yours, unless you agreed before the sale that they are only to be used one time, and you retain all other rights to them except for the single printing. Without a contract, they can do with them as they please.
5. I would use their (uncashed) check as prima facie evidence that they understood (or currently believe) that your works have value. Since they are in the business of providing content that will attract readers (and advertising dollars)they wouldn’t print them if they didn’t believe they had value to their readership–even if it’s only entertainment value. If they believe it was “public domain” they have the responsibility to contact the author and see if that is the case. It only took me (a product of US public schools) about .0003 seconds to see your “contacting me” link. They can find the definition in almost any legal dictionary (and I’m sure they have a legal department) under the term “due diligence.”
Don’t accept their payoff, because I think you have a great case for intellectual property rights, copyright infringement, and a MUCH BIGGER payday for punitive damages. After all, if you were to someday decide to use an advertising mechanism on your blog, the words they printed would NOT belong to you, because they’ve printed them and paid you for them, and you couldn’t turn around and let anyone else read your words on your blog, because they aren’t yours anymore, the belong to the Mail.
A nice lawyered-up letter should send them doing cheetah flips to make nice. Settle for nothing short of the entire days’ ad revenue from their Sunday edition, and a Full, front page apology, the wording of you must approve before publishing. Toss in printing your link on every page of their paper for a year, and a one-year contract to publish your thoughts on anything three times a week.
From that starting point, you should be able to compromise far more remuneration than $397 (USD) although that’s not a bad haul for a post you published for free.
May 1, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Two pretty detailed comments there - thanks.
Hi Jo - yes - you were definitely within your rights to be a bit narked. Like I said earlier, I’m quite sure that some people would be fine with seeing their stuff reprinted… but being asked would seem to be the bare minimum of courtesy. Personally I love reviews, nice (or nasty) mentions, hat-tips, being included in lists an’ all that… but I draw the line at providing space filler.
Chuck - wow - where to start?!? Part of my meagre, meagre, pauper’s earnings comes from writing things anyway, so I don’t need to start up a company or anything. And I’ve cashed the cheque, which I plan to spend on beer. Bravely, I waited for it to clear before writing this…
May 1, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Chuck - and yes - haha! - your first point - traffic on that Sunday was very slightly lower than on the two previous Sundays. I checked. Straight away.
May 1, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Go Chuck! You can work for me any day!
Well, as others said, sorry to be a bit late here. So let’s leave the copyright thing and move to the word amateur, which has caused upset to some.
It means “doing it for love”. It is not, and shouldn’t be taken as, any form of criticism, and I sense from Jonny’s letter extract, the correct meaning was meant by the MoS.
Once I used to write numbing freelance stuff for brain-dead readers of organs like The Scotsman. Paid, if not handsomely, as The Scotsmoon also used the line that their exposure had intrinsic value to the writer’s career. That their byline was worth some bucks. (They reckoned, and probably correctly.)
But this writing was paid for, and thus I was then, I guess, “professional”.
These days I earn my living in another area, but continue to write a personal weblog for my own and my readers’ entertainment. Too quirky and unreliable for print, it nevertheless brings in a steady if modest advertising revenue from those lovely people at Google.
But amateur. And I’m proud of that. Times and media have changed, even if the MoS hasn’t. Go Chuck. Pity you cashed that cheque, JB. You could have been a cause celebre. (Again.) And there’s me on jury duty next week.
May 2, 2008 at 9:34 am
That is terrible, think its great that they paid you for it though. Well done.
May 2, 2008 at 10:49 am
I agree with you Peter, and I didn’t think it was meant as an insult.
I think their problem with the use of the word is twofold. Firstly, there are loads of professional writers doing blogs, whether their blog is part of that professional work or not. Big assumption there - that a blogger is by definition an amateur writer.
Secondly, that an amateur writer won’t want to become a professional one temporarily - even for a few hundred words in the MoS.
I’m trying to be very neutral in tone about all this, as I know there are different points of view.
May 4, 2008 at 7:45 am
Hmm, I wonder who’s in it today? Of course someone will have to buy it to find out, but the ‘amateur writer’ could then be emailed to tell them of their rights, so they get paid the appropriate amount. Which would be nice.
May 6, 2008 at 2:33 pm
“better form an LLC quick, fast, and in a hurry, with all the licenses that apply to a business.”
Not true. Or at least, not in Britain. If you want to receive money for services rendered in a context other than your day job, you just ring up the tax office and tell them you are now officially self-employed. You don’t need to form a company. Indeed there’s no gain in forming a company unless your self-employed income is quite high. And you can be simultaneously both self-employed and employed-in-a-job. Once you register as self-employed, you will have to fill in an annual tax return.
You will also have to pay National Insurance (£2.20 per week). Or, if your self-employed income is less than approx £5k per year, you can apply for a Small Earnings Exemption Certificate, and only pay NI on your day-job earnings.
Filling in a tax return is much easier than it sounds, particularly if you are just declaring the odd cheque here and there. Do it online, and it is piss easy. Don’t do it on paper. It will make your head ache.
Once you have declared yourself self-employed, it is well worth collecting all receipts connected to your writing activities (domain expenses, stationery, computer expenses, broadband, purchase of books etc). You may well find that, as a result of declaring all expenses, you have made a loss at the end of the year. Which means you get to claim tax back on your day-job income. Hurrah!
May 6, 2008 at 2:40 pm
P.S. If, however, you give up the day job and start being self-employed full time, DO pay NI. Even if your earnings are still low enough to qualify you for small earnings exemption. It’s only £2.20 per week, and if you don’t pay it you won’t get incapacity benefit (if you get unexpectedly ill) or Maternity Allowance, and it will affect your entitlement to state pension when you retire.
You have to CANCEL the small earnings certificate, rather than pay “voluntary contributions”, because (for instance) Maternity Allowance will be paid at a much lower rate if there is any certificate in existence. BUT you can cancel it retrospectively and pay NI in arrears for up to two years if necessary.
Just in case anyone needs this info, like…
May 6, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Not “cheeky”; illegal of course. I have this statement on my about page:
” * Part of an article may be quoted on others’ websites provided that they are used in context as part of a larger article, and that a link to the original is included.
* Articles reproduced in their entirety, with or without acknowledgement, or material used as the substantive portion of an article on another website, are subject to a use fee. The minimum fee for one off use of an article £125 or $250. This fee is repeated annually unless a different arrangement is agreed in writing first.”
Never used, of course - but it’s there if I need it. After reading this, I think I will quadruple the amounts.
May 7, 2008 at 7:18 am
As a fellow victim of an MOS Blog Of The Week pillaging, I read this post with interest. I shall of course be submitting an invoice of my own now - cheers!
May 7, 2008 at 8:50 am
Hullo Rol and welcome - good oh. It would be interesting to know how you get on, as I think some other people are doing the same.
Thank you to Matt and Self-Employed writery person for the extra hints - this is becoming quite a resource!!! Which is exciting. SEWP is quite right - Chuck’s advice is quite US focused - it is very, very simple to be self-employed in Britain.
May 7, 2008 at 9:42 am
I would be excited and flattered if any of my blog posts were to appear in a national newspaper. And then rather annoyed, if it were a right wing rag. And then a bit conflicted.
But that’s no reason for said papers to take advantage of my flattered excitedness. If they make money from my writing, then I should too.
I would likewise be ABSOLUTELY FRIGGIN’ DELIGHTED if some major publisher took one of my books and sold it to millions of people, but if they didn’t pay me anything for it, well. I might be miffed.
May 7, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Just to build up the resource, it’s also worth registering for VAT. You can do it voluntarily before reaching any particular limit, and if you get on the flat rate scheme the returns are extremely simple - you just pay a flat percentage of your turnover each quarter which, unless you have extraordinarily huge expenses, works out to your advantage. You can even backdate your registration by up to three years so long as you know that you can reinvoice your clients for the VAT (they won’t mind as they just claim it back in turn). The net effect is to boost your income by about 4.5% (even more in the first year when you get a 1% discount).
May 7, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Oh dear, I wish I understood VAT. Or your comment about it, SV.
Sadly, I don’t.
Eh?
“you just pay a flat percentage of your turnover each quarter”
So if it’s something you pay, how does it make you better off?
May 8, 2008 at 9:12 am
Jonny, I am all too familiar with the Daily Mail’s tactics! I have just emailed you with my run in with them where they interviewed me without my knowledge and put me in a feature that I specifically said that I didn’t want to be involved in! They have written in their paper and on their website that I set up my blog to take evenge on my ex fiance! This is completely untrue and I specifically told them this.
I have been reading through these comments and there are some interesting slants. The London Lite did this to me on about ten occasions but I just let it slide. At the same time though, in hindsight I realise now that I shouldn’t have particularly as they edit where they see fit without your approval to make it fit in their filler space.
The Daily Mail are shits and I am not going to take what they have done lying down! Your post has put some extra wind in my sails so thanks!
May 8, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Well done, you!
What a cheek, MoS! Mind you I notice their sister paper the DM is not adverse to pillaging flick’r and Google shots at regular intervals for double page spreads of cute animals doing stuff etc, with no attribution to photographers even - the very least they could do!
May 8, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Actually JonnyB, the last paragraph in your reply from The Daily Mail justifying themselves kind of echoes the attitude of our local BBC radio station in Oxford. They regularly run short story ‘competitions’ with no prizes! Or rather, being broadcast and filling their airtime for nothing is regarded as ‘reward enough’ for we vain immortals (as in not needing to eat!) who experience ecstasies at the mere thought of our name being read out.
May 8, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Clare - instead of selling something for £1000, you sell it for £1000 + VAT, ie £1175. The person you sell it to is happy to pay this extra as they just claim it back in turn.
Then you pay the flat rate of 11% (depends on business sector, but this is the writers’ rate, and it’s only 10% in your first year) of this to HMRC = £129.25, leaving you with £1045.75, which is £45.75 better off.
May 8, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Stop whining you lot.
The real victims here are the poor MoS readers who have to put up with all that garbage believing it to be an organ of news and topical comment. Pity the old fogies…
May 9, 2008 at 9:47 am
Aha.
I thought you could only charge VAT on actual goods though - I mean, physical things. Can you charge it for articles, editing services etc, too?
May 9, 2008 at 9:48 am
It does seem a bit odd though. Are you sure you can charge 17.5% to yoiuyr customers but only pay 11% yourself? You’re not supposed to be charging at 11%?
May 9, 2008 at 11:41 am
*dials tax office*
Hullo The Poet Lauraeate and welcome!!! I have always liked your stuff.
NML - you have scared me now…
We don’t get the London Lite in Norfolk. So I doubt they’d be interested in me either. I shall keep a close eye on the Weasenham St Peter Informer, however.
May 12, 2008 at 4:34 pm
[...] of Private Secret Diary fame was alerted by a neighbour to the Sunday edition of the same paper in I receive an alarming telephone call!!! A 392-word excerpt had mysteriously found its way into the [...]
May 16, 2008 at 11:17 am
Clare - I don’t think it makes a difference whether you’re supplying goods or services.
The complicated way of doing VAT is that you charge 17.5% extra on your goods and services which you give to HMRC. But, you then add up all the VAT that you’ve paid on your expenses every quarter (agents fees, printer ink etc) and claim that back from HMRC. This is better than not being registered for VAT, as if you’re not registered you can’t claim back the VAT on your expenses.
The flat rate scheme makes it simpler by just looking at the industry sector you work in and making an assumption about what your likely expenses are going to be as a proportion of your turnover, then just applying a flat rate to your turnover without you having to remember that you bought a biro last week and you want to claim back 7p VAT.
I worked it out both ways for past years, and not only is the flat rate scheme very simple, it’s also better off than the non-flat rate scheme, as I don’t have many other expenses other than agents’ fees.
May 22, 2008 at 7:49 pm
[...] It is not a big piece, I know that. My work is currently vaguely covered by a Creative Commons license which states I am happy for reuse of my work so long as it is attributed (as this is). I might be rethinking the wisdom of this, but right now it stands. It is in the “letters” page of the paper, which is traditionally where the average person gets to have their say. All groovy. I have not been quoted out of context or vast swathes of my work reprinted without my permission. [...]
June 25, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Bastards. They asked my permission to run blog extracts once. I denied it, and they ran them anyway. I never thought of sending them a bill, mind. Good on you!