THE FREE LANCE

by Tabitha M. Powledge

But First, a Word from Your Freelance Committee

We may actually move forward with a project we've been mulling over for years: candid assessments of science?writing markets by you and for you. The project would be based loosely on the very successful anonymous rate survey (known as Pay Check) at the American Society of Journalists and Authors. Members provide information on what a specific market pays (and how fast) and also often report on how agonizing the editing process is. Or is not. The current idea is to post this info in a private area of the NASW freelance Web site, available only to NASW members. Logistics to follow; stay tuned. It's still very much in the planning stages, but we're hopeful.

Saint Lois

I am proposing NASW member Lois B. Morris for Patron Saint of Writers, and praying this does not imply martyrdom. As I imagine some of you know, Morris is the brave protagonist in a nightmare courtroom drama whose outcome will affect our intellectual property rights, by which I mean all NASW members, freelance and staffers alike.

Morris writes a monthly column called Mood News for Allure Magazine, a horse in Conde Nast's stable. Between 1994 and 1998, her columns were reprinted 24 times without permission in Psychology and Health Update, published by Business Concepts, Inc., a California company. Like most publishers of periodicals, Conde Nast had copyrighted the entire contents of every issue of Allure. Most of the reprints violated Conde Nast's 90-day exclusive rights to the Morris columns, but the publisher decided not to take action against Business Concepts. Thus Morris filed her own lawsuit against Business Concepts in 1999, claiming copyright infringement under the Copyright Act of 1976.

Last spring, a US District Court judge ruled against Morris. He said that the Conde Nast copyright registration for each issue offered no copyright protection to authors of individual articles, that authors must register their own copyrights in order to bring a suit under the Copyright Act. The judge conceded that Business Concepts' actions were (his words) abject and reprehensible. But he also faulted Morris, arguing that she neglected to protect her rights by registering her own copyrights. Capping the outrage, the Business Concepts lawyers are trying to stick Morris with their bill of $35,000.

She is appealing, bless her heart. So far ten other professional groups are filing an amicus brief on her behalf, among them the Author's Guild, the American Society of Media Photographers, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, the National Writers Union, and even NASW, thanks to the passionate urging of NASW freelances and the freelance committee, Beryl Benderly, chair. In his NASW Web site posting, Prez Palca notes: "The brief will basically argue that ruling against Morris will have a chilling effect on authors who have long assumed that a copyright registered by a publisher covered the individual authors who contributed material to the original publication. It will further argue that forcing authors to individually register everything they produce would overwhelm the Library of Congress Copyright Office in paper, creating an untenable situation for everyone."

"Unless and until the decision is overturned (the appeal will be argued in December at the earliest), the answer seems to be: copyright everything," Morris notes.

I asked fellow scribes on the freelance listserv if any of them had followed this advice and, to my surprise (the listserv discussants had sounded unusually alarmed), only two said they had. I'm thrilled to report that if you have been dragging your feet because you dread the hassle, there's no hassle. And if you've been dragging your feet because you thought you had to pay $30 for each article you register, that's not true either.

One of the filers is Lynne Lamberg, and hers was a response to a particular situation. Lamberg was a regular columnist for a Web site that collapsed, owing her for three columns. Concerned in particular because Web material is so easy to copy and plagiarize, she decided to file the copyright paperwork on all the work she had done for the site.

Lamberg reports, "In fact, it was relatively painless." She downloaded two forms from the Library of Congress Web site (lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/). The forms are TX and GR/CP. (The latter covers a group of contributions within a 12-month period, but you must file TX too.) She then downloaded the published versions of the articles she wanted to copyright from the Web site, filled in the information requested on the forms by hand, using black ink as specified, used more black ink to write a $30 check, and sent the stuff off. "Time involved: maybe an hour, but I spent most of that locating the forms and reading the instructions. Haven't yet received the registration, but haven't received any requests from the LOC for more info either. For $30, I expect I'll make this an annual ritual-at least until the Morris decision is reversed."

However, Morris says her attorney has told her that to sue for statutory damages and legal fees in federal court, a writer must have registered the copyright before or within 90 days of the infringement. So, even though you can register a copyright as long as five years after the fact, doing it once a year may not provide any real benefit. "It wouldn't have protected me, since Business Concepts republished my work in most cases as soon as it appeared," she points out. "But as a practical matter, even if you do register within the 90 days, I understand the copyright office is so backed up that it's unlikely you'll be able to get the registration in time to have access to the statutory remedies. I'm told that expedited registration is possible, but that costs several hundred dollars."

The other responder, Janice Hopkins Tanne, reports that receiving notice of registration typically takes six weeks. "I have routinely registered all my articles for copyright for the last 10 or 15 years," she says. In addition to downloading them, the copyright forms can be ordered from the Copyright Office over the phone (202-707-3000). "I have great trouble with PDF and so use old-fashioned paper. Writers can use either the form to register one article (Form TX) or they can group many articles published in a time period using another form (Form GR/CP)." (Note that Form GR/CP cannot be filed by itself, but rather must be accompanied by TX. Also, you must fill out both sides of the forms.) "In either case, the cost is $30. I have found it takes six weeks or so to get the forms back. I send the forms with a return?receipt to prove I've sent them, given the delay." For further information, Tanne suggests, consult the ASJA Web site (www.asja.org)

"Once you have figured this all out, the whole thing is easier than filing your quarterly estimated tax. It will take you maybe an hour to fill out the form, enclose your articles, write a check, and walk over to the post office. I tell other writers, 'You get title insurance for your house, don't you?' Registering your copyright means that a lawyer will be more likely to take your case if your copyright has been infringed, because the damages will be higher, and the infringer will realize that you recognize the value of your work."

The news that $30 and a single set of paperwork will secure the copyright on up to a year's worth of articles is particularly cheering, $30 per each turns into serious money pretty quickly. To say nothing of the form-filling vexation. An FAQ on the LOC copyright site says otherwise: "Published works may only be registered as a collection if they were actually first published as a collection . . ."

Ignore that and head straight for Forms TX and GR/CP. Your government at work.

How Not to Lie with Statistics

The basic toolkit for science writers includes not only our computers and easy access to the Internet, but some grasp of statistics. No one understood how basic the study of statistics was to our work better than the late Victor Cohn, one of the more august members of this august body. His essential News & Numbers: A Guide to Reporting Statistical Claims and Controversies in Health and Other Fields, first published in 1988, is still in print. (Iowa State University Press; ISBN: 0813814375).

Prompted by one of those perennial articles about how poorly the media handle numbers, I thought I'd see what was new on the Web in the way of statistical sites, a subject I covered briefly a few years back. Found one good new one and one that can be quite useful but may need to be approached somewhat cautiously.

www.robertniles.com

This is the place to head if you need either basic tutoring or a brush-up on statistical methodology. The site is designed specifically for journalists. Nice clear explanations not just of the difference between mean and median, but of the proper use of chi-square and the t-test, why you should care about the standard deviation, and many other fine points of basic data analysis. There's also a Help board where you can post questions about statistical arcana. But the answers (provided by visitors to the site) vary wildly in their utility, so I wouldn't count on it.

Robert Niles, the site's operator, has been a reporter and editorial writer at a couple of papers in the Midwest, Webmaster at the Rocky Mountain News for some years, and has recently joined the LA Times to develop its portal site. So the site also includes a how-to section on Web site design--and content. I didn't look at it carefully, but if you're wrestling with your own site-a task I keep putting off until I have a free week or two or 17 or 83--check it out.

A third how-to section covers Internet research. Probably not a lot here that you don't know already, but Niles also provides links to a huge array of Internet data sources. Unfortunately, many of them are enormously complex, the antithesis of intuitive, and will not be mineable unless you're savvy about computer-assisted reporting. If then.

www.stats.org

Run by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS), a Washington non-profit "devoted to the accurate use of scientific and social research in public policy debate." STATS would like to be your adviser on matters statistical: "Since STATS seeks to weed out bad data and research before it enters the media stream, we field queries from journalists on a regular basis." It publishes a free e-mail newsletter monthly; you can sign up for it on the site. It also publishes opinion pieces.

STATS has been heavily praised by journalists, but it is also accused of suffering from the disease endemic to Washington non-profits: having a political agenda. It is backed largely (although not exclusively) by conservative foundations, and its analyses frequently question the seriousness of ostensible hazards in lifestyle and the environment. The problem with sorting the politics from the reality here is that of course the debunking is, in at least some cases, thoroughly deserved.

One example: A recent analysis attacked a widely reported study stating that soft-drink consumers could not tell the difference between those with and without caffeine, and suggesting that soft-drink manufacturers lace their products with the addictive caffeine deliberately in order to hook customers and keep them coming. I guess you could see the STATS pooh-pooh as a defense of Big Coke, but the fact is that the piece made two quite legitimate points: the study subjects numbered only 25, and the tests were performed not with the accused colas themselves but with another, caffeine-free beverage to which the researchers had added the drug.

I expect to consult this site from time to time, and I even expect to find it useful, but I don't expect to swallow everything I read there.

Tabitha M. Powledge can be reached via e-mail at tam@nasw.org.

---

Return to NASW homepage.

Return to NASW Members' Lobby.

Return to ScienceWriters Newsletter homepage.