As of this posting, the writers’ strike in Hollywood continues, and television programming is getting worse because of it – not that many network programs or reality shows were any good to begin with, but the situation does not appear to be near a conclusion. If you’re not familiar with the situation, TV and movie writers (and their union) want to be compensated when networks repurpose programming for online use. You might be asking yourself what any of this has to do with you or b-to-b publishing, but the implications could be big.

First, the writers’ strike mirrors (admittedly on a much bigger scale) similar cases from the publishing world. For example, a few years ago a major consumer magazine was hit with a lawsuit over using a contributed writer’s article on the web without this person’s express, written permission (in other words, without paying for it). The lesson to be learned here, and in many other cases, is that freelance writers or other contributors to magazines, journals, newsletters, etc., should read their contracts.

Most publications (those that offer actual written contracts to freelancers, anyway) indicate these days that their articles could and likely would be placed online or repurposed in some other fashion. This should be expected of any publication. After all, the web is becoming an increasingly important part of magazines’ identities. This is true for b-to-b publications too. (Note: If your employer does not offer written contracts to freelance writers, get them to do so immediately. Protect yourselves and assure your contributors that you will act professionally with their work.)

Depending on the outcome in Hollywood, whether or not you stand with the writers and their predicament, the results could soon be seen in our industry. It would not be out of the realm of possibility for our writers to start demanding more compensation (or at least renegotiated contracts) for when their work is placed online or used again in some way other than the original feature assigned. And they could have quite a precedent on their side. The contributors certainly would be within their rights to do so, but could risk losing a valuable client.

As a writer and editor (though I do not freelance), I understand how freelancers could want to paid more for reuse of their work, but by the same token, most freelance contracts (that I’ve seen and used anyway), allow the writer to sell their work again – after a specified period – as long as it is not the exact same version previously published. That published version belongs solely to the publisher. I’m not so sure the same rules apply to Hollywood writers.

Have you and/or your employer thought about how you would handle your freelancers if they started asking for more money to have their articles used in ways other than print? If you haven’t asked yourselves this question, I suggest you start the conversation now. And please let the rest of this writing community know what you decide.

Update: The studios and the writers' union reportedly have reached an agreement that will provide the writers with a share of profits from online activities. I for one am pleased that this is over, and I am happy for the writers. I'm still curious how this could play out for the publishing world. What are your thoughts? Share them in the comments section.