copyright and premium content

As most of you know, since around September 21, the Herald has premium content for columnists in the online edition. Columnists were not advised of this change and have complained that their feedback has dried up as fewer people read their columns. In fact they couldn't even read their own work unless they subscribed at double the Heralds cover price of $1.50 a day. So the Herald gave them access to their own columns. Very nice.

However the columnists don't have copyright to their stories. Freelance columnists generally have copyright of their own stories unless they sign away that copyright and these columnists did just that. The Herald owns all their work so columnists can't flick it off elsewhere. These columnists are either ignorant of copyright law, plain stupid, or, as I suspect, didn't really care if they hold copyright - until recently, now that their collective egos have been damaged due ot lack of feedback on their columns. They want more money now that the Herald is apparently raking it in - but the Herald is happy to keep the extra revenue, have fewer online readers, without paying columnists any extra for keeping copyright to their stories..

I have written a few columns for the Herald and have had lots of feedback from every piece. I own the copyright for these stories. Any more I write will be premium content. This means that despite owning copyright of the online version of the article, as I'm not allowed to read it unless I pay for it, and my offshore mates can't even read it unless they do the same.