h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I recently registered here, and I'm impressed by the diversity of the entries and the liveliness of the discussion. I was all fired up to submit an entry or two myself - until I read the terms and conditions, and the clarification thereof to which I am now replying

I write for a living. While I would be quite happy to contribute to this site gratis, I am definitely not happy to give the BBC the right to sell on my contribution without making any payment to me. No-one, professional writer or not, should allow this as it threatens the livelihoods of those of us who earn our daily crust and keep our families through the sale of our work.

I personally have a problem with signing away my right to be acknowledged as the author of my work, and the right to approve any edits, though these are perhaps secondary issues for most people.

With regard to the statement regarding the waiver of the right to receive resale royalties: 'if this wasn't waivered, the project couldn't function from a business perspective, though as we've never sold any content, it's a moot point'. Could you please clarify this? If the intention is not to sell on entries in some form or other, what is the 'business' you are referring to?

Royalties, to make some sense of this issue for those who don't know how publishing works, are a percentage of the price realised on the sale of a piece of work, paid to the originator of that work. The payment of royalties does not preclude the seller making a profit on the transaction - it simply means that the person who created that work gets a fair proportion of the amount realised.

In anwer to your closing remarks: 'There are other bits and bobs in there, but these are the main rights that you waiver. They're not too scary, I would hope... how does this sound?'. It sounds as though the BBC is trying to get something for nothing ..... but perhaps you can convince me differently.

Hi Sarah,

The way some of us deal with this dilemma is to not publish writings on h2g2 that we personally feel are marketable. What we put on h2g2 is things set down for conversation or for fun, or when we feel self-important enough, for the good of mankind.

Maybe you could contribute things here just for kicks, without the pressure of expecting every word to pay?

Meanwhile, it is good to hear from someone who knows copyright and the publishing industry.

In regards 'something for nothing' - the BBC do provide hosting for your material, they provide a ready audience, and a number of means of obtaining advice for improving an entry. They also provide the technology and know how to have conversations attached to your entries, a number of images, and so on.

Signing away your right to be acknowledged (or not) as author - yeah, I have a problem with that too. I'd like, ideally, to always be acknowledged as author of my entries unless there are ten or more contributors to that entry.

Approving edits I have less of a problem with - it's needed to created Edited Guide entries without fear of hassle, which count as derivative works. In addition, sometimes entries have to be edited due to moderation, and obviously that has to be done without seeking approval. On a practical matter, I can see why it has to be waived.

That help any?

Hi Sarah.

"With regard to the statement regarding the waiver of the right to receive resale royalties: 'if this wasn't waivered, the project couldn't function from a business perspective, though as we've never sold any content, it's a moot point'. Could you please clarify this? If the intention is not to sell on entries in some form or other, what is the 'business' you are referring to?"

We may, in the future, sell things like books or CD-ROMs containing portions of the Guide, so although we haven't yet sold any h2g2 content, we need to have the right to do so. When h2g2 was an independent dotcom, this formed a central tenet of the business plan; now we are in the BBC, it's arguably less vital to the survival of the 'business' because it's no longer a traditional profit-driven business, but it's still in our plans to consider publishing the Guide in other media... so we need moral rights waivered.

"It sounds as though the BBC is trying to get something for nothing ..... but perhaps you can convince me differently."

We can see your point, but we do provide the site for free, we provide professional feedback for those who want to learn to write, and we have always made the point that this is probably not the place to be publishing your first novel, as you do sign away a lot of rights. If individuals don't want to sign the terms, then they don't have to, of course, and we have always explained the repercussions of the legalese when asked.

We have never made any secret of the fact that we are creating the Guide from people's contributions. So does the BBC get something for nothing? Given the amount of effort we spend on site and the cost of wages, servers and so on, we're not sure that 'nothing' is the right term! And do Researchers get something in return for their efforts? Absolutely - it's not for everyone, sure, but there are large numbers of people on h2g2 who are really, really grateful for the existence of this site. Ask around...

It's horses for courses, and we've always advised caution for those unsure of the meaning of the terms or professional writers, but we do hope we're transparent enough for it to be acceptable.

I wonder if providing a link to the relevant entry would count as associating some sold material to the author. If so, then it would seem that providing such association would be easy...

Hi Subcom.etc (are you an individual or a body of people?)

Good to meet you too. I take your point entirely - this is a lively and stimulating place, and I would like to join discussions here. This sort of material, as you say, is unlikely to be marketable anyway. I still feel a bit uneasy about the principle of the thing though.

The thing is that this site is either a sort of club to which all its members contribute for the good of all, or it is a commercial venture. My problem is that I haven't so far found anything to indicate clearly which it is. If it is the former, then any income derived from the contributions of members should be used solely for the furtherance of the aims of the site, and accounted for to the members. If it is the latter, then the originators of the work that is sold are entitled to a fair share of any profits. It seems to me to be as simple as that, but I am open to other views.

'Maybe you could contribute things here just for kicks, without the pressure of expecting every word to pay?'

Absolutely, I'd be delighted to - but I'd be a bit miffed, to say the least, if someone else then went on to make a profit from them. TO draw a rather feeble analogy - most carpenters, say, would be happy to knock up some shelving for their village hall, feeling that their community would benefit from their work and knowing that any profit made by the village hall would be ploughed back into its funds. They wouldn't do the same for the local pub, even though it might be a centre for village social life, because it is a business and exists to make a profit for an individual or group of individuals.

I absolutely agree with everyone that this site provides a useful training ground for aspiring writers, and a great place for everyone to air their views and get together. This obviously has to be paid for, and I for one have no idea how the economics of such sites work. Let me reiterate, however, that the payment of royalties does not preclude the publisher from making a profit - just ask any book publishing company where their income comes from - it simply ensures that the originator receives a fair proportion of the income that his/her work generates. Any publisher who seeks to deprive the originator of their cut is, frankly, being greedy.

This is a very contentious issue in publishing at the moment, particularly where electronic rights are concerned, and everyone should be aware of this before they sign their rights away. Let's give the subject a good airing here, then people can make their own minds up. I may be wrong, but I hope that that's what this site is all about.

Hello Eds.,

I'm hugely impressed by the reasonableness of your reply. You're right, the site does provide lots of good things for aspiring writers. As long as they are aware of the nature of the transaction, and know that their work may be sold for the profit of others, I'm prepared to admit that they do get something for their trouble - but that's not the only problem.

Being in the business, you will know how hard it is to make a living as a writer, and you will also know that this is partly because there are always people who are willing to work for nothing, or next to nothing, just to see their name in print. Publishers are very quick to take advantage of this, and down here in the lower echelons of journalism fees/wages are kept artificially low by the ready availability of people so desperate to write that they will do so for free. In short, those who allow their work to be published without payment are doing a professional writer out of a job. If we all insisted on being paid the going rate (which in this instance can be established by referring to the National Union of Journalists' Freelance Rates Guide), publishers would be forced to place a proper value on the material in which they deal, to the benefit of us all.

'.. it's still in our plans to consider publishing the Guide in other media... so we need moral rights waivered.'

Why? As I have pointed out, the payment of royalties to the originators of the work you included in such a publication would not preclude the making of a profit by the BBC - it would just reduce the size of it a bit. I know that business is all about profit, but the payment of royalties is established practice in other areas of publishing, and healthy profits are still made.

Non-journalists will not be aware that professional freelance writers have been engaged in a struggle with most of the major magazine publishers for the past few years. With the advent of electronic publishing, contracts suddenly started requiring the writer to sign away all of his/her rights to the work - formerly 'first serial rights' had been the norm. (In essence, this meant that the publisher bought the right to publish the piece on one occasion in a specified magazine, newspaper, etc., but the work itself remained the property of the writer, and any further publication had to be paid for seperately.) It is the aim of the publishers to reproduce the material in as many different ways as possible, without making any further payment to the originator, thus increasing their profits. Not surprisingly, writers strongly object to this, but often need the work so much that they are not in a position to make a moral stand. I mention all this for the benefit of anyone reading this post who doesn't know the background to the discussion - obviously you Eds. are well acquainted with these facts.

I am well aware that accountants control this sort of policy, not editors, but doesn't it make you feel a bit uneasy? What do the rest of you think?

Sarah,

I'm just this guy, you know? Only one person behind this nickname. What made you think there were more?

"Subcom." is just a joke, because I formed a group called the Zaphodistas. After about two years as a privately owned site, h2g2 was sold to BBC, which imposed many ridiculous restrictions. For example, languages other than English may now be hidden, because they can't adequately censor it if they don't know the language. Off-site images are no longer allowed, because the danger of copyright infringement is too great. Censors pass judgment on whether links to other websites are acceptable, and all links within conversation threads are currently removed due to the extra time it would take censors to check them all. We have about 180+ members, and a petition with maybe 100 signatures at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A544943 which you might consider reading.

The irony of your comment is that a woman with multiple personalities, who wrote posts under one nickname in any one of "20,000 documented personality fragments" was recently banned from h2g2, only the third person permanently banned from the site. [The reason for the ban was her flaming or anti-social behavior, not the multiple personalities. She might just as easily have behaved the same with only one "documented" personality.] Many of her supporters feel that she was treated unfairly and did not deserve to be banned.

As for the rest of this discussion, copyright and payments, I'll leave that to the Eds and Lucinda and anyone else who wants to comment. I think it's okay right now, because it should be clear to anyone who reads the House Rules and Terms and Conditions that they relinquish rights to their writings here. If it only gets published on h2g2, then it's for the good of the community. If it were published in a book, it would be for the good of humanity. Most of the 80,000 amateur writers here would love to see their name in print (if h2g2 content were published as a book). Sorry if that lowers the pay for professionals, but that's the way the market works right now.

Pros or amateurs who have something valuable enough to sell should avoid posting it to h2g2. As long as we know that upfront, then it's maybe sad, but not unfair.

On the other hand, if you can persuade BBC that they'll make enough profit even after paying royalties to researchers, that would be awesome too. I'd start writing more here.

ok, Sarah, since you want to try to square this circle...

How would you distribute the royalties from such a sale? Say, for example, the BBC sold the whole of h2g2 to *searches for an appropriately evil company* Nestle for £10,000,000. Which of the 800,000 h2g2 researchers should share in that windfall, and how much?

Sarah,

I forgot to mention how nice it is to hear someone say they appreciate h2g2 in part due to "the liveliness of the discussion." Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between flame-wars and lively discussions when you're engaged in them, so I hope your fresh perspective is accurate. (Or maybe you just haven't found the flame-wars yet? )

Hi Sarah.

You asked two questions...

"Why do we not pay royalties?"

In all honesty, Sarah, h2g2 is a long way from being a profit-making site. The original dotcom company ran out of money, and there are (as far as we know) currently *no* revenue streams on h2g2. Thus for the foreseable future h2g2 is a loss maker, and the BBC provides it as a service to those who want to use it.

We will no doubt look at ways of producing revenue streams, such as books, but at this stage there's simply no way we could pay royalties. h2g2 is non-profitable, and there aren't any specific plans on the go that will alter this.

If, say, h2g2 suddenly did turn in a profit from selling books and so on, then things might be different. However this is such an unlikely eventuality, for the foreseeable future anyway, that it would be foolish of us to comment... as you say, this is where the accountants come in, not the editors.

"Doesn't it make us feel a little uneasy?"

Not really - without asking contributors to waive their moral rights the site couldn't operate, and seeing the excellent function it provides to members of the public, it's worth it.

We do take your point about it potentially annoying professionals, but we also make sure that we're as open about the implications of the terms as we can be. If you want to give the people a voice, then you can't help but annoy those professionals who may feel threatened; but is this reason enough not to give the people a voice?

It's a very interesting debate, but I'd hope that h2g2 is evidence enough that it's a good thing to do... especially when you consider that the BBC is paying to provide this service, and will probably continue to pay for it for quite a while.

I, personally, would be honoured rahter than annoyed if one of my entries was put into an h2g2 book or CD-Rom, even though I wouldn't get paid... the reason? I _dont_ write for a living, and seeing something one has written actually in print and being sold would be gratifying. Even more so if the authors of the articles were given credit, which would be possible if the media was link to the site etc.

Hello Lucinda

The sale of the entire site to Nestle (boo, hiss - I have been taking part in the boycott since it started) would presumably just result in the site continuing much as it does at present. Everyone is happy to contribute to this site,perhaps because they believe that it fulfils a useful purpose. In effect, they have given the right for their work to be published on this site by whoever is running it, free of charge.

If Nestle then started to take material from the site and sell it on in some other form, the originators could expect a cut of the profits. Alternatively, they could waive their right to royalties *provided that the money raised, or at least their share of it, was ploughed back into the site*, and this was publicly accounted for.

This is all getting a bit academic. I really just wanted to air the issues, so that anyone who cares enough to look for comments on the terms and conditions knows the significance of what they are signing away. I can see that many people are quite passionate about this site, and I'm very impressed by that. Thanks for your input.

Hello Subcom.

I haven't come across the flame-wars you mention yet. I have very much enjoyed this discussion, although I think we've about done it to death now - thank you for your contributions, which have clarified things for me a good deal.

I agree with most of what you say, and on balance the benefits of the site for most people probably outweigh the theoretical problems anyway. It's always worth questioning things occasionally though, don't you think?

I'll see you around.

Hello Eds.

Thanks for your reply. All points taken, and I quite agree that this site does provide a useful service. I don't actually believe that there is a gaggle of cynical money-grabbers lurking behind h2g2 twirling their moustaches and waiting for the cash to start rolling in - as you say, that's a pretty unlikely and distant scenario.


As for giving the people a voice - this is indeed a valuable function. I see that there is already some debate about censorship on the site, and I'm interested to see where this will lead. Meanwhile, you Eds. appear to be doing a rather difficult job well and with integrity. Sorry I've taken up so much of your time, but it's been very interesting.

Interesting to hear from a professional writer!!

As I understand it though: you agree that the BBC has a non-exlusive copyright and you can go and sell your work elsewhere if you wish, having taken advantage of the medium to polish your work, and/or learn how to do it at all.

I think that if the Beeb were to make a Profit from the site then it should be plowed back into the site - whether in more full time staff or better servers, or, indeed royalties to contributors (to do this the site would have to become a HUGE money spinner.....).....

Sarah - thanks for listening.

william shakespeare once wrote"the law is an ass"and"the first thing we've hot to do is kill all the lawyers"

my only objection is as a license payer i am subsidising services that i don't have access to this is seems unfair to me especially wgen you consider the number of single mums veing jailed for not paying license

Which services that you don't have access to? If you typed that here you must have access to them...

Should the BBC not produce Regional news programs because only a small portion of the public has access to them - those particular shows that is?

As to the point about publishing work "posted" here ... Over Xmas I was given a book called Crap Jobs - published by the Idler (website Idler.com) which was made up of "reader posted" stories about jobs...

Perhaps someone should publish the "embarrassing stories" thread?