EARLIER this week, I was approached by a company called Web Summit with a very exciting offer. Would I like to come to Toronto, the email asked, ‘to lead discussions on our future-focused panels as a moderator with some of our more high-profile talks’? Although I am no expert in the world of tech, I have a little experience of moderating panels, and I wondered whether word had spread about my apparent brilliance. I was circumspect, but the carrots of a trip to Canada and the potential of a fat conference fee made me think it was worth a phone call.
Sadly a lot of underpaid folk have to pay to get more....to actually end up getting not much further. As a 'creative type' I know this only too well. If an offer for exhibiting work/ talking/doing workshops pops up at some far flung place or even in the big metropolis .....read the small print.
As I said elsewhere it was unwise of Hancock to trust Oakeshott. I have never met her but I have seen her on political panel shows and she didn't strike me as a person one should have confidence in. I never cease to be surprised that organisations approach writers and historians and expect them to fork over the knowledge free of charge. Says he who has asked many a question of historians and writers.
It wouldn't be my assumption that it would be reasonable for journalists and historians to pay the people they interview and whose tales they recycle into their article and books. So it's not the story that is important but the work.
If you are told to stand and read out lines to a camera -- as an actor is -- you might reasonably be expected to be paid to be directed to do this work. You'd have to re-do it if it wasn't upto scratch and if you didn't like the words you could say them or refuse the work. You are being paid by the person with editorial control.
If you are given a platform and given absolute discretion to say what you like and moderate how you please then you might argue that you have editorial control. Are you directing your own work? There's nothing inherently wrong with agreeing that they will provide something of value and you will provide something of value and no money should exchange hands if that is agreed and fair.
As long as it's clear up front, I don't see there's any shame in being asked to work for free, nor in politely declining that request.
This comment may be published for the cost of one glass of Burgundy. Invoice to follow.
At this stage of my modest writing career, I think it’d be nice just to be asked to speak. I probably wouldn’t do it anyway, don’t even want to have a book launch. Interesting article though. I must look up your piece for the Literary Review.
As for Matt Hancock .....least said the better.
Sadly a lot of underpaid folk have to pay to get more....to actually end up getting not much further. As a 'creative type' I know this only too well. If an offer for exhibiting work/ talking/doing workshops pops up at some far flung place or even in the big metropolis .....read the small print.
As I said elsewhere it was unwise of Hancock to trust Oakeshott. I have never met her but I have seen her on political panel shows and she didn't strike me as a person one should have confidence in. I never cease to be surprised that organisations approach writers and historians and expect them to fork over the knowledge free of charge. Says he who has asked many a question of historians and writers.
Tricky. What is the payment for?
It wouldn't be my assumption that it would be reasonable for journalists and historians to pay the people they interview and whose tales they recycle into their article and books. So it's not the story that is important but the work.
If you are told to stand and read out lines to a camera -- as an actor is -- you might reasonably be expected to be paid to be directed to do this work. You'd have to re-do it if it wasn't upto scratch and if you didn't like the words you could say them or refuse the work. You are being paid by the person with editorial control.
If you are given a platform and given absolute discretion to say what you like and moderate how you please then you might argue that you have editorial control. Are you directing your own work? There's nothing inherently wrong with agreeing that they will provide something of value and you will provide something of value and no money should exchange hands if that is agreed and fair.
As long as it's clear up front, I don't see there's any shame in being asked to work for free, nor in politely declining that request.
This comment may be published for the cost of one glass of Burgundy. Invoice to follow.
Hancock isn’t very bright is he.
Hancock comes across as an easy mark and Oakeshott as the worst of everything, so not surprised whether paid or not
At this stage of my modest writing career, I think it’d be nice just to be asked to speak. I probably wouldn’t do it anyway, don’t even want to have a book launch. Interesting article though. I must look up your piece for the Literary Review.