Pundit.co.nz has opened its site to bloggers and citizen journalists, allowing site members to contribute articles. It looks like a good idea, until you read their copyright agreement:
By submitting your contribution you agree unconditionally to give Pundit:Clauses 1 and 2 are (mostly) fair enough, and part and parcel of running a site (though that 14-day exclusivity is a bit much, when they have only a couple of days on their front page). Clause 3, OTOH, is not necessary to the site, and basically gives away the farm - it means they can republish your material anywhere, anytime, without asking. This might not sound so bad - after all, its just an opinion article - but its entirely gratuitous, and its hard not to see it as grasping. The EPMU's advice for freelance writers (short version: "don't") recommends that freelancers not give up such rights without proper compensation.All other rights are reserved by you...
- Exclusive, first-time rights to publish and archive the contribution (words and/or images) on the Pundit website. You will not sell or give the contribution to, or permit it to appear in, any other online or other publication for at least 14 days.
- The right to edit and adapt the contribution in line with Pundit’s editorial standards and editorial policy.
- The non-exclusive right after use on Pundit to publish the contribution in collections of material published by us in paper form and online anywhere in the world.
Pundit doesn't seem to be offering any compensation - which raises the spectre of Huffington Post-style exploitation of the internet gift economy - but there's a whole 'nother post in that (suffice to say that I fundamentally object to a revenue model based on exploiting and expropriating free content; if they're trying to make money, writers should get paid, simply out of fairness). My point here is that the intellectual property rights demanded here are unnecessary and excessive. And if that's what they're demanding, I don't think people should be writing for them.