The Los Angeles Times is facing an escalating labor quarrel that is a mounting obstacle to the 400-plus member Los Angeles Times Guild’s first collective bargaining agreement.
The dispute concerns what rights L.A. Times union members, mostly comprised of the newspaper’s staff writers, have to write books for publication.
In Jan. 28 contract language passed on to the union, management said it would consider permitting book deals, “on a case by case basis.” The language implied that the Times’ executive editor, managing editor or general counsel must first approve any book project by a Times’ union member.
The Guild made the issue public earlier this week, with about 2/3 of its members writing an open letter to Patrick Soon-Shiong, the Times publisher, and Norman Pearlstine, its executive editor:
“The company has proposed a draconian policy on books and other creative projects that, as a condition of employment, would go far beyond the work-for-hire standards of U.S. copyright law and the relicensing practices historically allowed by the Times,” the letter read in part.
The contract language contrasted with other newspapers including the New York Times, the letter argued, which do not reserve the right to block book projects.
Pearlstine, though, did not back down, He fired back with a letter of his own Thursday night to the Times guild.
“There is nothing new here,” Pearlstine wrote. “We only seek to protect our rights to products derived from work that belongs to us.”
“As the company is evolving, we look to other sources to fund our journalism through derivative projects and intellectual property. Our view is straightforward and consistent with our past practice and with the position taken by most media companies whose business models are similar to ours.”
The war of open letters continued Friday afternoon with guild member Carolina Miranda writing, “If there’s any miscommunication here, it’s that management thinks we didn’t understand their proposal the first time.”
“Our lawyers have reviewed the company’s proposal and have advised us not to accept them – as have most literary agents,” Miranda’s letter continues. “Most newspaper contracts don’t include language laying out the company’s rights to intellectual property. Those that do give far more equitable treatment to the staffers who create the work.”
According to Neville Johnson, an entertainment lawyer who represents intellectual property creators in litigation, Times management is giving themselves more control over book deals than rival newspapers.
However, Johnson added, management’s proposal here is similar to so-called 360 deals musicians increasingly sign that give record labels a cut of the artist’s merchandising and touring sales. “These are take it or leave it deals with talent in unstable industries,” Johnson said.
Unclear is whether the book spat upends months-longs contract talks. The guild was recognized as a bargaining unit shortly before Soon-Shiong purchased the newspaper from Tribune Publishing Co.
Pearlstine’s note mentioned worker-friendly management proposals including a more than 10 percent increase to payroll, paid paternity benefits and mileage reimbursement.
Matt Pearce, LA Times guild member, told the Business Journal that the Guild is “still working through a variety of stumbling blocks.”
“But as you can see,” he added, “With two thirds our bargaining unit protesting this IP policy, it raises concerns about whether the membership would actually ratify a contract that contains this language.”
Media and entertainment reporter Matthew Blake can be reached at (323)556-8332 or [email protected]
