Tuesday, 21 May 2013

DC Thomson Contracts - the response

Shirley Blair, the fiction editor of People's Friend, has sent me the following guest post as a direct response to our concerns about the new DC Thomson contracts. 



Thanks, WomagWriter, for giving us this opportunity to address the concerns that have been expressed about our new contributor terms. We’ve always had the utmost respect for all of our contributors, and we’re concerned to hear of such widespread unease.

The first point I’d like to make is that this is NOT a “rights grab”. The copyright remains with you, the writers (and illustrators, photographers, feature writers, etc). We have the exclusive right to first publication; this was always the case under FBSR. After that the original work is yours to reuse or sell on in any way you choose, as before. The difference is that the new agreements give us the right to reuse material without further payment. But this does not prevent you, the author, from also reusing it any way you wish. And the terms also make it clear that we cannot sell the material to a third party without paying you a royalty.

As a company we have to keep pace with developments in the world of publishing and with what our competitors are doing. If we don’t, we risk jeopardising the long-term future of our titles. Our legal department decided that it was necessary to develop new contributor terms that apply right across our publishing business and are relevant to magazines, newspapers and digital publishing.

Yes, there is a fair amount of legal “jargon” involved, but there has to be as this is a legal document – it has to be watertight in the best interests of all parties. And we do care about the interests of all parties – we have spent months working on the terms and wording to ensure fairness to all involved.

The wording WomagWriter quoted for Clause 8 actually comes from an earlier draft of the agreement. This section has now been amended to make clear that first refusal to publish a collection of works is “not to be unreasonably delayed” and that the new contractual terms to be agreed in the event of such a collection would include additional payment.

The other area that seems to be causing concern is Joint Contributions. In fact it’s always been the case that the copyright of the edited work belonged jointly to DC Thomson and the author and rights to reuse the published work could not be granted to any other publisher without the agreement of both parties. The author is at liberty to sell or reuse the original work only. We’ve known for some time that this breach of copyright was occurring, and it’s actually one of the reasons why it has become necessary to issue new contracts to all our contributors. We have a duty to protect the time and expertise that our editorial teams invest in our publications.

If there’s one message I want to get across today it’s to reassure everyone who writes for us that we are the same people we have always been. We cherish the good relationships we have nurtured over many years, and we hope that any author who has queries or concerns about the new contracts will contact us so we can put their minds at ease. Just talk to us! To date over 100 contributors have signed the new agreements; many of those approached us first with their questions, and we were happy to work through their issues with them. This doesn’t mean the contracts are negotiable; they’re not. And sadly, we can’t buy any new material from an author who refuses to sign the new terms. But every author is, of course, free to choose not to submit material to us if they prefer not to under the new terms.

Again, thanks to WomagWriter for allowing us this guest spot – it’s very much appreciated.


Thanks, Shirley. If you have further queries about the contract, either contact the magazine editors directly, or post a comment here. You may comment anonymously if you prefer, but please be polite and professional at all times.

In my mind at least, this has really helped clarify the new contract, as well as explaining the reasons behind it. I hope it's helped everyone else, too. 


52 comments:

Linda Gruchy said...

Thank you so much for this, Shirley.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your response, Shirley. Can I ask why not all contributors have been sent contracts? Also, will this cover work already sold to you if we choose not to sign the contract?

At present I sell on my stories to more than one market. I would lose out by only getting a royalty if you sold the story instead. It would seriously affect the earning potential of my stories. As a full time writer this would lower my standard of living and to be honest, as much as I like writing for D C Thomson, I'd probably have to stop submitting as I like to eat each day and pay my mortgage ontime.
Best regards
Elaine Everest

parlance said...

That's very interesting. I'm a newcomer to writing for women's magazines, and so far have found it a pleasant experience. I did republish a story that has been published in a magazine - at Alfie Dog - and I sent Alfie Dog my original version, not the one the magazine had edited. Now I'm glad I did it that way.
Catherine

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that the over-riding problem here is that writers have never before received a contract from DCT in which the company has set out its 'requirements'. (That's probably not the correct legal term but, as we keep saying, we're writers not lawyers.)

So when Shirley says that they 'have exclusive rights to first publication; this was always the case under FBSR', I am astonished. I have often submitted stories to them that have already been published in another country. DCT has bought them - and published them too. So have I been breaking a contract that I have never even seen?

Patsy said...

Thanks Kath and Shirley for trying to explain this.

So the new contracts aren't a rights grab, but do give the company the ability to republish our stories wherever and whenever they like without offering further payment?

Carolb said...

Thank you Shirley for the clarifications.
Also big thanks to Womag.

But like Patsy, I too am concerned about the reuse without further payment.

And the Clause 8 issue only raises more questions- additional payment sounds like a one-off payment rather than royalties...

Rena George said...

Thank you, Kath, for posting such a comprehensive report on the new DCT contract - and to Shirley, for the detailed explanation of the new terms.
I completely understand that DCT must move with the times to compete in the fast-moving world of publishing, but they are still one of the lowest payers in the business. I don't see any sign of payments to authors and writers moving with the times.
I doubt if any of us would disagree that the editorial teams at DCT are lovely, brilliant, supportive people to work with, but we all have bills to pay. Sadly, I can't see the company increasing writers' fees any time soon.
Shirley points out that - 'Every author is, of course, free not to submit material to us if they prefer not to under the new terms.'
Since the contracts are non-negotiable, it's a case of sign-up or walk away.
Some writers may boycott submissions to DC Thomson over the coming months. There has certainly been enough comment about it on Facebook, but at the end of the day, markets for short fiction are in free-fall. The DCT magazines remain the constant in this uncertain world of short story publishers.
So I suppose the new contracts just had to happen - whether we writers like it or not.

Rosemary Kind said...

An interesting response, but one that does not really answer the questions. 1) what if the royalty they offer you for a collection is lower than you would receive elsewhere? You should have the right to have them match the higher royalty or to take the work elsewhere. 2) what about a reuse that will reduce the royalties you can earn through other paid secondary use?

What they should be looking at is a 2 tier rate structure 1) which does as this contract suggests at a higher level of royalty and the other 2) at the existing FBSR only level which pays a lower amount. The writer can then fairly see what options they have.

Shirley, The People's Friend said...

So, comments so far:
Linda and Catherine, thank you.
Anonymous 1, FBSR stands for First British Serial Rights, ie the right to exclusively publish first in Great Britain, so prior publication in other countries wasn't an issue. And we did ask all writers to sign a "first acceptance" form the first time we bought one of their stories.
Patsy and CarolB, yes, that's true, but the writer still retains the right to publish further, too. Re royalties/payment, this would be negotiated if and when relevant.
Rena, thanks. We're not looking at this as a callous "take it or leave it" option, though it's true we will be unable to consider work from writers who haven't signed, so it must seem that way. But we really hope to bring as many writers as possible with us through these changes.

Cara Cooper said...

Hi Shirley and Womag - thanks for clarifying things. I'm not the sharpest tool in the box so I appreciate being able to ask questions of Shirley. One of the biggest attractions for me is the opportunity for PLR when I sell pocket novels and I guess serials to Ulverscroft in order to get them into the libraries. Am I right in thinking that a) I can still sell large print rights on my PNs and serials to Ulverscroft but only using my original manuscript, not the printed version DCT issues and b) that if some time in the future DCT wish to issue them as e-books, they may choose to negotiate with authors a split of earnings? Is that correct or so the new contracts entitle DCT take all of any e-book earnings? Personally I have long wondered why DCT don't issue them as e-books and I think they'd do very well from them - 'clean' fiction does terrifically well in States. Other e-publishers I am with give around 40% to the author which I think is fair for the amount of work involved in creating covers, formatting and promoting the books. I would love DCT to print e-books of our work but I would also love (no surprise here) to get an author's cut on any earnings.

Cara Cooper said...

Sorry, that should have been "Is that correct or DO the new contracts entitle DCT take all of any e-book earnings?"

Sally Quilford said...

Cara has raised the issue that concerned me, so thanks for that Cara.

In a nutshell, does this new contract mean that DCT can re-use pocket novels, either as ebooks or otherwise, without paying the writers any further payment, including royalties?

womagwriter said...

One writer has sent me a comment by email to add to this (she was accessing the blog on her phone so couldn't comment directly)

S.T. says:
I'm a little concerned that people may be missing a subtle point about the new contracts re overseas sales. It makes little difference to me as i so rarely sell to DCT but I wouldn't want other people to be misled. Even though dct only want nonexclusive rights after first publication, this still stops you giving someone else exclusive rights in their territory. E.g. TLFf require 90 days of exclusive Aus rights after acceptance and you will not be able to give that, even if dct haven't yet published there. So it does affect overseas sales even if dct don't exercise those rights. Just wanted to point that out.

Anonymous said...

I have a few points I'd like clarified.

Clause 1) The First Publication clause "in any Media", does that mean as soon as you've published in one medium, we are free to use elsewhere? ie, we don't have to wait until you have published in print and digital. I assume this is the case, but as someone's already said, we're not lawyers.

Clause 8) What is the situation for authors who wish to publish collections that don't solely consist of stories published by DCT (which I think is more likely to be the case)? Do they still have to give first refusal to DCT? And does the author have to accept the deal if DCT does want to publish, or do they have the right to refuse the contract after they have offered?

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your response, Shirley. Can I ask why not all contributors have been sent contracts? Also, will this cover work already sold to you if we choose not to sign the contract?

At present I sell on my stories to more than one market. I would lose out by only getting a royalty if you sold the story instead. It would seriously affect the earning potential of my stories. As a full time writer this would lower my standard of living and to be honest, as much as I like writing for D C Thomson, I'd probably have to stop submitting as I like to eat each day and pay my mortgage ontime.
Best regards
Elaine Everest

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but dress it up as you like. Reserving the right to publish in the future without any further recompense to the author *is* a rights grab.

DCT pay nowhere near enough to even think about implementing such changes.

And why are non-abusive comments being deleted just because you don't necessarily agree with what they say? I thought this was supposed to be a balanced discussion. Shame on you, Womag.

Sally Quilford said...

Womag and S.T. in my experience TLFF don't mind reprints as long as you tell them when you're subbing to them. I had no problem selling my story Piano Man which was published in The Weekly News and in my own ebook collection (something I made TLFF aware of when I submitted the story).

So just tell them when you submit a story where your work has been published and you should be alright. Also tell them if you've submitted to another publisher and are awaiting a response.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your response, Shirley. Can I ask why not all contributors have been sent contracts? Also, will this cover work already sold to you if we choose not to sign the contract?

At present I sell on my stories to more than one market. I would lose out by only getting a royalty if you sold the story instead. It would seriously affect the earning potential of my stories. As a full time writer this would lower my standard of living and to be honest, as much as I like writing for D C Thomson, I'd probably have to stop submitting as I like to eat each day and pay my mortgage ontime.
Best regards
Elaine Everest

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your response, Shirley. Can I ask why not all contributors have been sent contracts?
Will you still use our published work if we choose not to sign the contract?

Will the fee for the purchase of a story be increased as you now want more rights to our work?

At present I sell on my stories to more than one market. I would lose out by only receiving a royalty if you sold the story on my behalf. Can you tell us what the royalty percentage would be?
It would seriously affect the earning potential of my stories if I allowed my work to be reused without being able to negotiate a fee. Can you explain how we writers win here?

I am a full time writer this contract would lower my standard of living as my earning potential would be lowered. I like writing for D C Thomson but I need to earn a living wage.

Francesca Burgess said...

This makes me incredibly sad. It's recently been announced that DC Thomson's owners are the sixth richest in Scotland, with £1.1 billion. Yet they're trying to make themselves richer at the expense of us stuggling writers. How is this right?

Anonymous said...

For some reason my posts are being removes. They are not offensive so I'm rather perturbed that the extent of the worries shown by full time writers is not being shown.
My main question was that contracts seem to be sent out on a random basis. Why is that?

Also, can you advise what the royalty payments would be if we were to allow you to sell on our work?

Anonymous said...

Struggling writers is definitely a term I'd use. We're struggling to cope with a contract that has not yet arrived. Why have so many regular contributors to DCT publications not yet received their copy and have to work on second hand comments?
Reading the above explanation I can only see that DCT have plans to make more use of our work than they already do. Can we expect a raise in fees to accompany these changes? DCT are the lowest payer in the womag world, which is extremely sad, but it's also why we sell on our work elsewhere.

womagwriter said...

To Anon at 13:33: I have NOT deleted ANY comments from this discussion.

I did spot a comment in my emails at 10:44am which had not made it onto the blog - maybe it got sent at the same time as someone else's.

womagwriter said...

Right - just found a lot of comments on this discussion which Blogger had decided were spam. Not me deleting them - I've had far too much to do today to moderate comments.

I've reinstated all comments that were in the blogger spam folder.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns, Womag - much appreciated. Being a writer can be quite lonely and the chance to have a central point for important discussions is invaluable. Te DCT changes are quite scary. It may be that because of the financial implications many writers will decide to submit elsewhere in the first instances and only submit to DCT when the other markets have rejected their stories. Whereas currently they would have written specifically for DCT with a view to trying to earn more on a second sale. Again thank you for always being here to help.

Shirley, The People's Friend said...

I'm sorry - it must seem like I'm ignoring your concerns, but we have had an incredibly busy day in the office today preparing the next weekly and special issues, with no chance to come back to this blog with properly considered answers. I will do my best to respond to each of your issues tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

Rather than the silent protest many writers are involved in, I intend to stop buying all DCT publications. If all writers did this it might convey to the company exactly how disgusted we are with this contract.

Madge

Della Galton said...

Just popping in late on this. But could I just say that in the last 26 years I have worked for D C Thomson, I have found them to be the kindest, fairest, nicest people you could ever wish to work for. This is a commercial world - publishers HAVE to move with the times, and the times are very tough for magazines right now. Surely having a contract like this is better than no magazine at all? And Writers DO have a choice about who to write for. Don't we. So make your choice, guys, that's what I think.
Also, in terms of previous contracts I was certainly sent one by Thomson - way back in the mists of time. Just as I have one for every other magazine out there I work for. They are all similar.
Thank you Kath for doing such a great blog. And thank you Shirley for taking the time to respond.

Anonymous said...

Womag - thanks for hosting this discussion. And thank you to Shirley at PF for responding. What this is telling me so far is that I've clearly been missing a trick by not re-subbing overseas! Off to WHS to research magazines...
Anon aka Innocent Abroad!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for answering these queries, Shirley, but I'm still a little confused over the rights issue.

You state above that 'We have the exclusive right to first publication; this was always the case under FBSR,' but the contract clearly states ‘exclusive right to first publication any where in the world, in any Media, languages and geography’, Is this not first world rights?

I'd be grateful if you confirm. Many thanks. LM

womagwriter said...

Well said, Della, and thank you.

Pat Posner said...

I second your comment, Kath.
It's good to see Della's 'voice of reason' amongst the comments - a couple of which are verging on the offensive.

Writers have questions they'd like answered and that's understandable. But, surely,there's no need to make censorious comments as well?

TracyFells said...

Thank you to Shirley for taking time out to explain the revisions and to respond to comments/ questions. And thank you Womag for bringing this discussion to the forefront. This is has clearly shown all writers need to fully understand any contracts before signing. If in doubt seek clarification - as you would in any profession.

Shirley, The People's Friend said...

So, to pick up from yesterday…
Cara, yes, you’ve got that exactly right: once we’ve published it, you can still sell your version of a short story or pocket novel to anyone you like whenever you like; and yes, if DCT wanted to republish a pocket novel, we would have to come back to you to negotiate a new deal.
Sally, I think this answers your query too: we can’t republish a pocket novel in any medium without negotiating a new deal with you, since you would be its sole contributor.
Anonymous, yes, re Clause 1, once we have first published in any one media, you are free to sell on your original story text. Re Clause 8, that’s a complicated one and I shall find that out!
Elaine, because this was a massive exercise, we have been rolling it out in alphabetically arranged batches. And no, it is not retrospective. Work sold to us on our old terms remains on those old terms. “Will DCT still use our published work if we choose not to sign the contract”? Well, no. Work bought under the old terms will be ineligible because FBSR doesn’t allow that, and we can’t buy any new work from writers who haven’t signed the new contract. Re us selling onto another market, that’s syndication which is covered in Clause 7. Syndication is non-exclusive, ie you always have the right to sell on at the same time.
Anonymous, we have to agree to differ on “rights grab”. To us that would be taking all rights, as some mags do, or demanding exclusivity for a year+ term like other mags do.
Sally, thank you..
Francesca, as a family the Thomsons have invested hugely in the company and all their publications in order to keep the business as viable as possible and ensure its future in an incredibly difficult economy. Magazines go bust every day. We are striving to not let that happened in the DCT group.
Anonymous, royalty fees will be negotiated when relevant.
Anonymous, the roll-out is a gradual process. And keeping our fees low enables the magazine to remain viable.
Anonymous, if you feel you can no longer write for us, that is always your prerogative.
Madge, again, that is your prerogative, though if you all stop buying the publications, those publications fold, meaning you have no forum for your work.
Della, bless you!
Anonymous, go, girl!
LM, the old terms were FBSR, ie British Rights.
Pat and Tracy, thank you.
And again, thanks, Womagwriter!

Sally Quilford said...

Thank you for responding, Shirley. It's good to know that for pocket novels, at least, we'd be negotiating a new contract for further publication.

There's still the issue of selling on to Large Print, but I'm waiting for Sarah Quirke from Ulverscroft to get back to me about that.

Anonymous said...

Shirley, thank you so much for all the time and effort you're putting into answering these queries.

I know the old terms were FBSR, but it's the new terms I'm not clear on. Can you please confirm that the rights you are asking for are 1st world rights?

Thanks. LM

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Womag, for posting this discussion - and thanks to Shirley for the explanations.

Whilst i agree the pay rates with DCThomson are low - and this is perhaps a niggle, aggravated by the new contract - one reason I sub to the People's Friend is my appreciation of the efficiency and friendliness of the team, and their readiness to nuture writers they feel may suit. Following feedback i have rewritten stories two and three times before having them accepted. Whilst other magazines may pay more, this sort of input is rarely forthcoming for new writers, in my experience and overall it has increased my rate of sales and earned me more - so, in my eyes, that partially redresses the balance.

Difficult times for short fiction magazines and writers. It'll be interesting to see how the market stands 5, 10 years from now.

Sam


Kath said...

With all due respect to Della (and who in the womag world doesn't respect Della Galton?) I don't think kindness and niceness are to the point. Isn't that the trouble with us as women shorts writers? - buy a story from us and we're so grateful! It's a business arrangement. Kindness and niceness are great but they're surely an added extra in a business transaction? I'd have to rate a fair payment rate and decent conditions above kindness in this situation.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your, so far, partial answer to my queries, Shirley.

Can I add one more thing to the Clause 8 query.

When you say majority author - do you literally mean if you wrote 51% of the book? Or is it more stories in number than other contributors? Or some other measurement?

Rena George said...

The new DCT contracts are here to stay and it's every writer's choice either to accept the terms and sign, or simply not to submit to this publisher again.
No matter what we think of the new terms, not many other magazine editors would have come to this blog and answered every single point raised in the way Shirley has done, and I thank her for that.
Contracts, terms and conditions, by their very nature, are so wrapped up in complicated legal jargon as to be completely indecipherable to most of us, and there was much to be explained about this one.
For my part, now that so many points have been clarified by Shirley, the new contracts don't seem quite so worrying. As far as I can see, we still retain full rights over our original work and are free to use it any way choose after publication. And just as Sally has mentioned, where pocket novels are concerned, Sarah at Ulverscroft has confirmed they are looking at the possibility of accepting manuscripts (rather than physical copies of the published pocket novels)
An excellent discussion. Thank you for hosting it, Womagwriter.

Rosemary Kind said...

Shirley
Thank you that you have taken time out of your busy day to answer the points raised. I think you may have missed my original points as they crossed with your first reply:
1) what if the royalty you offer for a collection is lower than an author would receive elsewhere? They should have the right to have you match the higher royalty or to take their work elsewhere. 2) what about a reuse that will reduce the royalties the author can earn through other paid secondary use?

What you would be better looking at is a 2 tier rate structure 1) which does as this contract suggests at a higher level of royalty and the other 2) at the existing FBSR only level which pays a lower amount. The writer can then fairly see what options they have.

Linda Gruchy said...

Well said Della, Kath, Pat and Sam. These are changing, challenging and uncertain times in the publishing industry. DCT has to adapt to the new globalisation of the market, and so to we as writers.

We need magazines just as they need us. It's mutually beneficial. Whilst it may be that we are being asked to yield more rights for the same reward, that is the state of the industry and it's no good railing against it.

It might seem like a threat but there are opportunities here too. It makes sense for DCT to anticipate with a new contract. I haven't yet seen it. (Should I have, Shirley?)

I have to say I really appreciate Kath allowing such a discussion on her blog, and Shirley for taking the time to talk it through with us and answer questions. It's so valuable.

Shirley, The People's Friend said...

This will probably have to be my last input to this discussion — you know, magazines to produce, and all! But…
Kath, you said it yourself, it’s a business arrangement, a business transaction. We don’t pay the highest rate in the business, that’s true, but we operate in a free market economy. We also happily offer copious amounts of feedback, help and advice, and we pay on the nose. And we have introduced terms that we know are certainly fairer than some.
Anonymous, re majority author: this means if more than 50% of a short story anthology was by one author. A pocket novel is one entity, as a single short story is.
Rena, thank you for your generous words.
Rosemary, whatever payment we might offer under Clause 8, our use is non-exclusive so you always have the right to take your work elsewhere as well and at the same time. You don’t have to make a choice.
Linda, thank you. And again, thanks to WomagWriter. You can have your blog back now!

Anonymous said...

Several of us watched the above "spammed" comments appear, disappear and then reappear again. Blogger must be getting very clever in its old age to do that all by itself. Or those of us who saw them imagined it ...

If contracts have been sent out alphabetically, they must have got lost in the post, because we've now seen that a W has received it (when many others haven't), and forwarded it to SofA - whose advice so far has been don't sub to DCT any more then. The NUJ's response has been the same, thereby suggesting that the new contracts are not very nice. Of course, DCT won't be bothered about that anyway as they've always made it clear - to staff and to freelances - that any kind of organisation will not be tolerated. They even used to refuse to publish members of the NUJ.

I too will stop buying DCT products, as a reader and a contributor, and I will stop subbing to them as well, as is - as you say, Shirley - my prerogative. Most of the reason I buy them is to support my friends and colleagues anyway, but not any more. Others will choose to do the same and the products may eventually fold anyway.

It's a shane for the staff. I too find them very lovely and encouraging and also try to support them too, knowing full well the constraints under which they are forced to work.

Good luck, DCT and all who sail in her.

womagwriter said...

Re the spammed comments - as I have explained to this person elsewhere, I most definitely did not delete a single comment from this blog post. I was out yesterday afternoon and only realised comments had gone to the spam folder when I got home and investigated the allegations that comments had been deleted.

I assume that the comments went to the spam folder because so many were sent from the same IP address - that would trigger Blogger into thinking they were sent by a spambot. And the fact they appeared for a short while on the blog before being removed is no mystery - the spam-checker is presumably not instant but takes a while to trawl through.

I have thanked Shirley for her time and patience here, and I hope this discussion has been beneficial to everyone else.

Sally Quilford said...

It has been beneficial, Womag, and thank you for giving everyone this forum in which to express their views and to ask Shirley questions.

Thank you too, to Shirley, for taking the time to answer our questions.

Anonymous said...

Re the spammed comments, I've only put 2 comments on here, 3 now, nowhere else. Nothing has been explained to me elsewhere. I hope I've not got someone else into trouble, but apologies if I did.

womagwriter said...

Last 2 Anons - I assumed you were the person having trouble yesterday whose comments were going to the spam folder, and to whom I'd already explained what the problem was.

Sorry for that but it is hard to tell Anons apart.

Debbie W said...

Personally I would have thought it simply a matter of courtesy for anonymous posters to put their names on at the end of the post?

I find it odd anonymous posters want to contribute to discussions yet don't identify themselves.

Regards,
Debbie W
erewashwriterscompetition.weebly.com


Anonymous said...

My posts were some of the ones that disappeared into the 'spam folder' and no I have not posted here at all today so someone else is guilty!!!!
My name was on my posts.
Elaine Everest

Simon Whaley said...

If anyone is interested, I have posted a comment on my blog about the contract, the Society of Author's response to me and also the feedback I received from a Dc Thomson editor.

My blog post can be found at : http://simonwhaleytutor.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/dc-thomson-me-society-of-authors-and-dc.html

Simon

SarahE said...

I haven't had or seen this contract but thank you to Womag and everyone else for all the information.