Graphic Artists Guild Contract Monitor Reviews
Date filed: February 4, 1998
Date Updated: July 29, 1998
Name of Company/ Parent Corporation: New Yorker
Address: 20 West 43rd Street New York, NY 10036
Phone Number:
Type of Company: Magazine Publisher
Names of Publications: New Yorker
CEO or Publisher's name:
Overview: In the old, pre-internet days of 1989, New Yorker Magazine offered a contract to graphic artists that was in many respects a model of fairness and simplicity.

The present day New Yorker is leaner and meaner and has joined the pack of modern publications squeezing their contributors for all they are worth. No longer gentlemanly in their pact with their writers and artists, the New Yorker now demands all-rights to any cover art produced for the magazine and removes the artist from any negotiation or approval for its future use.
Contract Highlights: Here's a side-by-side comparison.
 1989  1997
Demanded "right of first refusal" of ideas and cover-art, but paid generous fee just for signing contract. No additional fee for signing
Establishes payment floor pegged to previous fees paid to artist in question; offers an additional "bonus plan". Agrees to pay "not less than our current rate"; no bonus plan
Grants artist right to veto reprints by third parties, and artist receives payment for third party reprints. Demands exclusive first rights, reprint rights and syndication; non-exclusive anthology, third party reprint, and on-line rights, with no additional payment to artist. No artist veto of third-party use; no payment to artist for third- party use. Rights demanded are global, for full term of copyright.
Explicitly states that the New Yorker does not own title to ideas and cover-art drawings. Grants artist cover-art ownership, but qualified by New Yorker's right to alter, crop, etc. (See below.)
Artist makes any revisions required. Reserves right to "retouch, crop, or modify the work". Demands that artist require subsequent reproducers to credit The New Yorker, and to provide The New Yorker with copies of works containing reproductions. Artist to be given credit on reprints "whenever possible."
Updated News: This came in from one of our subscribers..

"The contracts letter is interesting indeed. I used to do a ton of work for both Salon and Conde Nast, but haven't recently due to their contracts. At one time, Salon had a model contract, and they have a very friendly helpful art staff, but times change. In general, as I'm sure you already know, the web presents all sorts of goofy situations. High-and-mighties such as Newsweek and Entertainment Weekly pay pitances for re-use rights on the web. I had to turn down an offer to illustrate MCI's website, because they would only pay $50 an illustration!

I have also pretty much stopped working for many newspapers. The Boston Globe's budget and contract have gone way downhill, as has The Los Angeles Times. Neither of which I will work for until things improve.

AND, as long as I'm ranting a bit, I feel that it's my duty to inform the GAG about some NASTY practices that the internationally esteemed illustration showcase The New Yorker has been doing with me. Talk about an ugly contract! Foolishly, I signed it, and I have payed for it. This last Christmas, they used an image that I had done for their calendar section as the front cover image for their Christmas card. They never asked me, or told me about it, or payed me a penny for it, or even sent me any samples! I found out when a fellow iller told me, "hey nice New Yorker card" and I called up the designer, and after some apologies, he sent me a few cards.

Then, he threw me another job, a spot illo which they ended up cutting in half into TWO spot illos! AND, five months later I still haven't gotten a check from them."
 This information is true and accurate as of the date specified, to the best of our knowledge and belief, and is provided by the Graphic Artists Guild to help artists make informed choices.