Quite a while back, I sold an article for usage rights.
Periodically, I run Google-type searches on segments of my work, because I've had problems with theft in the past. As far as I have found, this particular usage-rights article is only posted in one spot. Therefore, I'm guessing that the blog where it is posted belongs to the legitimate buyer.
They left my byline on it. However, they changed the title, and put a small piece of commentary or introduction between the title and the article itself. They also added a sentence and a link to the end of the final paragraph as a marketing device. The added sentence looks, at first glance, as though it was a part of the original piece, but it is not.
That doesn't quite fit how I understood usage rights to work. In truth, I probably wouldn't have been as concerned if the commentary and sentence they added weren't as awkward as they are. (At least they fixed the spelling errors in the added bits, since the previous time I looked!)
Considering the amount of time that has passed since the sale, there probably isn't anything to be done about the problem. That said, could someone please confirm whether or not these kinds of changes are acceptable in usage rights?
Thanks.
On a more positive note, two of my old articles sold for full rights over the weekend.
One was for a very specific public request last year, so I didn't think it would ever sell.Cheers.
Tamatha
