Income Tax Tip for Canadian Writers

[Note: this post is modified from  a piece I wrote for the March/April 2012 Outdoor Writers of Canada newsletter, Inside Outdoors.]

It’s that time of year again when we all must sit down and face the reality of just how much we did or did not earn last year in preparation of our annual income tax returns. Part of that preparation is making sure we report our writing business income and deductions correctly to pay as little tax as legally possible. However, many writers are not aware of how they should be reporting certain income to get the greatest benefit in both the short and long term. I am no accountant or tax lawyer but I have been in this business for over 30 years and have had a long relationship with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

T5 Slips
Book publishers and Access Copyright (AC) report to the CRA income earned by writers and photographers, etc. as royalties on T5 slips. The instructions on the form tell you to report the revenue on  line 121 of your return as investment income or line 104 as other income. However, your AC and publisher revenue is NOT investment income. It is income you have earned as a result of publishing your writing or photography and rightly should be reported on line 135 of your tax return as earned business income as explained on the CRA web page.

Why is this important?

1. As earned writing income you can legitimately subtract your writing expenses from it. If you are like most writers and barely break-even or only make a little profit, every piece of earned income is important, especially to the CRA in case you ever have to prove that you have a reasonable expectation of making a profit (i.e., pay taxes) from your writing. It’s always a good idea to show a profit from time to time in case that expectation is questioned.
2. You get credit for earning the income on such things as how much you can contribute to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP), and how much you will eventually receive from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS). This may not seem important if you are young but believe me it is as you approach retirement age. Your CPP (when the time comes) is calculated based on the amount of income you have earned over the years. The key word here is “earned”. Revenue from investments (dividends/interest) does not qualify as income for calculating what you receive from CPP or OAS or invest in an RRSP. Every piece of earned income you claim over the years will affect how much you receive from your RRSPs, CPP or OAS in your “golden years”.

So, claim your AC royalty as earned income in your writing (communication) business. But why does AC, and book publishers report revenue paid to writers on T5 slips? That’s a good question, and I have never heard a good explanation except that it is not salaried earnings (reported on T4 slips) and the CRA wanted them to report the earnings on something…? Writers have struggled with the CRA on this issue for decades. Several years ago, the combined efforts of The Writers’ Union of Canada (book authors) and the Professional Writers Association of Canada (periodical writers) convinced the CRA to issue a policy statement that those taxpayers who claim writing and artistic business income can claim royalty earnings from their publications as earned business income (it was always the case, but until then not formalized). That statement is reflected in the CRA web page explaining what you must do to report this income.

That’s great but often the minions at the CRA (or its computers) haven’t heard of this policy, and will flag your return because the CRA has received a T5 slip they believe you have not claimed as income. So, here is what you must do:

• if you submit a paper return, include the T5 slip as required and write on it that this income is reported as part of your writing business (line 135) and not as investment income. Enclose a covering letter explaining where the income is reported.
• if you file electronically (where receipts etc. are not included), you need to also post a physical letter to the CRA (with all the details of who you are, SIN etc.) explaining why you did not report the T5 as investment income.

All that done, you may still get a reassessment back in a few months, showing the CRA has recalculated your tax to include the T5 as investment income (the reassessment is issued by a computer), thus double crediting that particular income. Don’t get angry (although easy to do). Just pick up the phone and call them (using the toll-free number found near the end of the reassessment) and explain that you are a writer and that the income on these particular T5 slips is income you have earned from your writing and was reported as part of your business income on line 135 of the T1 form. The first time this happened to me is when I learned that I should send a covering letter on each return explaining the situation. It’s a pain in the rear-end, but I do it (I have a form letter on my computer where I just change the dates). Also, I used to file electronically, but this hiccup with the T5 and a couple of investment issues where cover letters are required has convinced me that I should be sending in the physical return with all the attachments. If you use a tax accountant to prepare your return, alert him or her of this situation and why it is important to you. Print the CRA web page I’ve linked above.

Now, I know it is real easy to give in to the CRA and just report this income as investment, but DON’T. You will lose out in the long run. Take the extra steps. You won’t regret it.

Copyright and the Canadian Writer

[Note: this post is based on a piece I wrote for the January 2012 Outdoor Writers of Canada newsletter, Inside Outdoors.]

Another year has come and gone and we don’t seem to have made much headway on the Canadian copyright front. There is much change on the horizon, however, and it will affect how we do business. Indeed, freelance may well be going the way of horse-drawn carriages and buggy whips—as evidenced by a comment a budding writer made to me in an e-mail discussion. He interpreted the “free” in freelance to mean that he was writing for free, not expecting monetary payment for pieces he published. All he cared about was his byline on a story and the knowledge that people were reading it and respecting his knowledge. I tried to explain to him the real meaning of freelance, that it had to do with independent professionals (originally knights—i.e., mercenaries with lances) trying to make a living, that paying freelance writers competitive yet reasonable fees for good work maintained writing quality, and that what he was describing was writing as a hobby. That argument didn’t seem to cut much ice. Not only did he not care about getting paid for his writing, he wanted to read everything for free and then decide what he thought was good writing. But I digress, except to say that what this young writer wants he just might get, at least here in Canada

Bill C-11
As of this writing, the Copyright Modernization Act (Bill C-11) is in second reading and looks like it will pass into law soon in this new year. Despite considerable lobbying by Access Copyright (Canada’s copyright licensing agency), most major writing and publishing organizations, and individual writers and publishers, it looks like educational copying will be added to the definition of fair dealing.

What does that mean to you, the Canadian freelance writer? Educational institutions (whether primary, secondary or post-secondary) or any other organization that runs educational programs will be able to copy your work for free. Access Copyright (AC) currently receives 80% of its revenues from education. So, AC payments to you are bound to decline once Bill C-11 comes into effect. As well, AC will be spending more money going to court to define the specifics of “fair dealing”. For example, is there a limit to how much can be copied? A whole book or just a few pages? An entire magazine, article or just paragraphs from articles? An entire DVD or just a few scenes? As of this writing, this is not spelled out in the legislation, so it most likely will be left for the courts to decide. Also, there is a real threat that the new copyright act will be challenged internationally for breaking treaty obligations with regard to copyright. For example, will U.S. or U.K. or French publications be copied freely by our educational institutions when such use is not allowed by their copyright laws? The can of worms being opened by our government will keep us in court a long time.

Supreme Court
However, all is not lost. Access Copyright has substantial funds held in trust awaiting distribution to affiliates (creators and publishers) provided the Supreme Court rules in its favor with regard to licence agreements with certain school boards. The complainants refused to pay increases negotiated through the Copyright Board, and until the final court ruling comes down, AC has been holding the funds collected in case they have to be returned as a result of an unfavorable decision. These tariffs fall under the old copyright act and should be honored as AC followed all procedures laid out in law and licence agreements with the institutions involved. (Despite what you might hear, AC does not [indeed cannot] make unilateral decisions about tariffs. It must seek negotiated settlements.) The Supreme Court ruling is expected sometime in 2012 or early 2013. So, it is possible that your 2012 or 2013 Payback payment could be significantly boosted—provided AC is still around to distribute it.

Reorganizing Access Copyright…?
As I related in a previous post, while all of the above has been occurring, one of AC’s founding members, The Writers’ Union of Canada (TWUC) decided that it didn’t like the way royalties were being distributed to creators and publishers through the Payback program (although it helped design Payback). TWUC asked the 17 other creators’ organizations that are members of AC to discuss reorganizing AC, in hope of dividing it into two copyright collectives, one for creators and one for publishers. The Outdoor Writers of Canada (OWC) is one of those creator members and I represent the Outdoor Writers of Canada to AC. After some discussion, the OWC informed TWUC it thought such a discussion premature especially with regard to the current battles over copyright. Our argument was that we need a strong Access Copyright to fight these battles on our behalf!

Well, apparently the OWC was not alone in its decision. As far as I understand, only two creators’ organizations, the League of Canadian Poets and the Canadian Association of University Teachers, have agreed to discuss such a reorganization with TWUC. If you look at whom these three groups represent (book authors, poets and university teachers), you understand from where they are coming with regard to their members and Payback (i.e., if you just published books, you most likely lost revenue when Payback was implemented). Three out of 18 organizations does not make a revolution. However, the damage is done. It did not take long for AC’s detractors to cite TWUC’s motion as evidence of the need to disband AC.

I still do not understand TWUC’s timing of this motion. Writers’ organizations should be protecting the copyrights of their members, not undermining them! Access Copyright has done a lot to protect copyright in Canada and provided revenue that significantly boosted the income of many writers. Such revenue would not have been possible without AC.

Or have I got it all wrong and my young correspondent has it right? Is copyright an anachronistic concept and I should accept that my writing will be copied without compensation? If so, then it may be time for me to start looking for something else to do.

Writing for Free

As I have written elsewhere, it is difficult for a person to earn a living as a freelance writer. It is not impossible. I did it for many years, but I had to work very hard, always thinking about where my next job was coming while scrambling to meet the current-contract deadline.

Although I’ve written for magazines and newspapers, and in the early years got paid well for those articles, I made most of my money from contract writing for governments, corporations and non-profit organizations. Contract writing paid the bills and put food on the table. Why? Because I got paid for the actual amount of time I put into the project, not just the words published.

Although being paid by the word by periodicals was technically supposed to cover my expenses, it never did. Twenty-cents-a-word, which is the going rate for many local or regional publications (and has been for decades), barely pays for the time it takes to decide on a project, locate information sources and fire up the computer, let alone actually research and write the article. Yet, that is the rate many of us are paid. Why do we accept it? Because it is often the only “gig in town” for the subjects we like to write about.

Sure, there are $1-a-word and higher rates around for some national or international publications, and I’ve written for some of them. However, the competition for space is intense and you cannot depend on getting an assignment every time you think you have a good idea.

Now, with the advent of the Internet and the World Wide Web, there are a lot more writing opportunities. However, many of those opportunities pay very little if anything at all. I am often approached by web sites to send them stories, either new or previously published, without any mention of how much they are willing to pay. When I question them about fees, they quote me some low-ball figure (“beer money” as one publisher told me) or tell me that publishing with them for free will increase my media profile (as if their site is God’s gift to public relations).

So, the question is often asked, especially by writers trying to break into the business, “when should I write for free?” My glib answer is “never”, but if truth be known, that answer would by hypocritical on my part. I often write for free, especially for non-profit organizations with whom I’m associated. However, I do this as sparingly as possible, always placing my “paying” projects in highest priority. That is what you must do if you are truly trying to become a so-called “professional”, i.e., earn a living from your writing.

But if you are trying to break into the business and have little or no record of publication, writing for free on the Internet or in low-budget printed publications is a temptation. Having publication credits on your resume is important. I just caution that you should make sure the publication truly cannot afford to pay you (struggling non-profits being the best examples) and that you receive ample credit for your work and that you give them “first-time rights” only. In other words, you want to be able to sell that piece to another publication on the remote chance they see it and wish to reproduce it. Understanding your copyrights is fundamental to being a successful writer!

So, how do you know whether a publication cannot afford to pay you? Do your research. Are they truly not-for-profit? On the website where your piece will appear, for example, is there advertising? If so, who is advertising? Many sites—especially for-profit businesses—requesting writing pieces for little or no fees have advertisers whom you know are paying big bucks to be there. If your writing is going to help drive visitors to their web site (and hence to the sites of the advertisers), why are you not getting a piece of that advertising revenue? Sure, such exposure might be beneficial for your business profile, but should you be subsidizing a business with your free writing? You know the business paid good money to have the web site developed and pays a fee to have it published; why should your writing not be part of that cost? If they cannot afford to pay for your writing, perhaps they should not be publishing it.

The bottom line for me is indeed the bottom line. I have only so many hours in the day/week/month to do my writing. Although I want my work to be published and read (whether in print or on the web), I also want to make money from it. Thus, I only do minimal “free” writing. It has to be for non-profits, it must not interfere with my for-profit work, and I must be committed enough to do a good job for minimal research.

How much free writing you do is a personal as well as a business decision. If you must put food on your table with the money you earn from your writing, then business trumps personal much of the time. The development of a business plan (where you establish goals and objectives and plan how to reach them) will back this up. If, however, you are not concerned about making a living—perhaps writing as a hobby or to supplement your income—then writing-for-free may indeed be beneficial, if just to get your name in public view.

Keeping Records

[Note: I wrote this article for the 2010 September Outdoor Writers of Canada newsletter, Inside Outdoors.]

Copyright (C) 2009 Don H. Meredith

When I first saw the announcement last spring (2010) about Access Copyright’s new Payback program, I felt a cold chill run up my back. As you remember, Payback required writers and photographers to submit by May 31, 2010 the number of publications and photographs they had published for each of the last 20 years. The cold chill was the result of my contemplation of how I was going to come up with all that information. I’m sure I was not alone. However, there is nothing like waving money in front of somebody’s nose to get them to do a job they otherwise would not.

I suspect I was a bit better off than many, as I try to keep a running tab of what I’ve published over the years. This list or bibliography has helped me in several ways, from keeping my résumé up to date to just reminding me when and where I wrote about a particular subject. However, I failed to note how many pages or photographs I had published with those articles and books. So, I had to make a trip down to my basement storeroom and rummage through my archive files to resurrect my tear sheets and count pages and photos. My bibliography did come in handy to ensure I found all my publications. On the other hand, the search found a few articles I had neglected to include in the bibliography.

Keeping records is not something that comes easily to the creative mind. When you are creating a story or composing a photograph, you are not thinking about how it should be found years down the road. However, as Benjamin Franklin noted, “nothing is certain but death and taxes,” and both death and taxes require records to be kept. Now, you may not be too concerned about what happens to your writing after your death, but your heirs and maybe even your readers might be. Taxes are more of a concern for the living, and record keeping is necessary to ensure you pay as little tax as legally possible.

Taxes

When I first started my writing business, over 30 years ago, I quickly learned it was important to keep a record of income and expenses. In those days, the personal business computer was just a fermenting dream in the minds of people like Steve Jobs; so, most small business records were kept in the old-fashion manual way. I used columnar graph paper, one page to record income and another to note expenses. In those early years I found it easy to forget to record receipts for supplies etc. but after I did a couple of tax returns, it soon became apparent that I should become a lot more disciplined if I wanted to keep most of what I earned.

Today, spread-sheet computer programs can handle a ledger quite easily and do all the math. There are also accounting programs that look after all financial aspects of a business; but I find my spread sheet program (Microsoft’s Excel) adequate for the business I run (no employees or large inventory). Over the years I’ve developed a business template that allows me to easily enter data, organize it to correspond to the Canada Revenue expense categories, and see where I stand at a glance. Come tax time, it is quite easy to transfer the totals over to the tax form.

No matter how good your software, if you don’t use it, it isn’t much help. As soon as I receive a payment for my writing, or buy a memory card for my camera, I make sure I record same on the spread-sheet. This saves a lot of work at tax time, and like I said, I know where my business is financially at any given moment, allowing me to make informed decisions about such things as quarterly tax payments.

Now, I know some of the form-phobic among us prefer to dump all their receipts and cheque stubs on accountants at tax time and let them figure it out. I can understand this. The tax form is a complicated mess. However, I have found computer tax programs to be quite easy to use (I use Intuit’s QuickTax). The good ones check your work and make sure you are not missing deductions that may apply. They also allow you to file your return on line, speeding your refund if any.

Death and Access Copyright

Up until the establishment of Access Copyright (AC), there was no big incentive to keep a complete record of what you wrote or photographed. Sure, you might keep a list of some of what you published to add to résumés, etc. and it might be informative for your heirs to see in one place all that you did; but the act of recording everything just didn’t have any immediate benefits. When Access Copyright came along (as CanCopy), that all changed. Suddenly there was a need to record with AC what you’ve published so that if it was copied, you could receive royalties. If you were like me, you probably only recorded with AC those publications you thought might be of interest to someone to copy, usually your more recent publications. After all, AC’s old online recording program (Rights Management System) left a lot to be desired. However, Payback has ensured that we need to keep a record of everything we publish.

Bibliographies can be recorded as either a spread sheet or word processing document. I store my bibliography on a MS Word document. where I record all pertinent information about when, where and what. There I can easily copy and paste things to other documents if necessary. However, Payback’s requirement to also record number of pages and photographs, forced me to make another list on a spread sheet. There I can set up formulas to determine the total number of pages and photographs. This is the sheet I will use each year to update my Payback submission.

Keeping records need not be an arduous task. Setting up templates can initially be time consuming, but once done the work becomes easier. The next thing is to maintain the discipline to get the recording done and move on to other things.

 

Killing the Goose

[A discussion about the proposed reorganization of Canada's Access Copyright.]

We writers are a funny lot. We often work for wages well below the poverty line, or in many cases, for nothing — writing on speculation hoping somebody will see our hidden talents and pay us handsomely after the fact. However, to justify the reality that much of what we write will never see the light of day, we often state to ourselves and others that our speculative writing is really only for ourselves to satisfy some inner need for artistic expression, and whether we get paid is not important. All of which might or might not be true, depending on who we are and what motivates us.

Regardless of who we are, those are pretty noble gestures in a world that is largely driven by greed. But then along comes some seemingly “free” money* and watch the nobility cloak drop from our shoulders as we squabble among ourselves for a fair share of the booty. This is what is happening here in Canada with regard to Access Copyright, the reprographic collective that was established in 1988 to protect the intellectual property of Canadian copyright holders when such property is copied.

[* The royalties received for copying one’s work of course are not “free”. They are indeed earned by the writer who often does not receive sufficient payment upfront for work done.]

The Goose

Back in 1988 the major copyright concern was the photocopying of  books and articles by schools, businesses and libraries. With the advent of relatively cheap photocopying machines, it was easy for anyone to take a book or magazine off a library shelf and copy parts or all of it for his or her own use. Canadian copyright law, like such laws in other countries, stated that such copying was illegal unless the copyright holder was adequately compensated. However, it was not easy for a reader to track down such copyright holder and arrange payment, but it was easy to copy the work. So, copyright was regularly violated and hence writers and publishers banned together to develop a system that would allow readers to easily pay for such use and ensure that the creator of the work was fairly compensated.

It was not an easy task. Violators had to be tracked down, compensation demanded, and when not forthcoming, legal action taken. Thus, Access Copyright assembled a staff that included  copyright lawyers to negotiate licences and sue violators on behalf of creators and publishers. At first, government money was used as “seed” funding, but as AC sold licences and won settlements in court, it quickly became a self-funding agency.

As a result, writers were encouraged to register with AC so they could share in the revenue. If licences specified that specific authors be compensated then those writers would receive royalties from AC for that copying. Many other licences were negotiated where flat fees were paid to cover all copying — specifically with school boards, universities and libraries — where specific creators and publishers were not identified. AC classified the royalties derived from the latter as ‘repertoire’ and distributed them equally to all registered creators annually.

The Golden Egg

As these payments grew in size with the increasing number of licences negotiated, some creators started taking issue with the equal distribution of these repertoire royalties. Why was it that all registered creators were receiving equal payments when many had published for years while others had only a few pieces published? Thus, AC commissioned a study to determine if there was a better way to distribute the repertoire payment, among other concerns. Other reprographic collectives in other countries (there are many) were investigated and sure enough there was a better way to do it: catalog each creator’s published work and pay according to the amount of material published. As well, provide compensation for illustrators and photographers for the work they have published.

Payback

Therefore in 2010, AC overhauled its repertoire payment system under its new Payback program. Registered creators were required to submit an accounting of the number of works and pages published in the last 20 years, and if registered as an illustrator/photographer, the number of images published during that time. Sure enough, when Payback payments were made last fall, writers and illustrators were paid according to the amount of publishing done. [A more complete description of Payback can be found at www.accesscopyright.ca.]

Many creators were happy with AC for delivering on making the repertoire payments more fair. I represent the Outdoor Writers of Canada (OWC) to AC and I took a poll of our members with regard to their satisfaction with the Payback program after its first year. Sixty percent (60%) of those who received payments received more money than they had in previous years, and 68% were satisfied with their payments. Like other writers, outdoor writers are a diverse group, and many are very productive, writing for newspapers, magazines, and authoring books among other things. Many are also photographers that illustrate the many pieces they publish each year with their own photographs. So, a 20 year portfolio of work could very well be significant in terms of compensation for material copied; and indeed it was for many (and yes, I received a significant increase). I am also sure there are many other periodical writers who greatly benefited from the Payback program or they understand that as their careers continue their benefits will increase.

However, some writers who have only published a small number of works over the last 20 years and who do not regularly publish photographs or other images received Payback payments significantly lower than what they had received in previous years, and guess what? They are unhappy.

The Killing

Despite being a founding member of Access Copyright (helping set up the collective and participating on its board of directors where decisions about royalty distribution were made), The Writers’ Union of Canada (representing book authors) passed a motion at its Annual General Meeting this spring to separate “creators’ and publishers’ interests in collective licensing” because “key differences in the copyright interests of publishers and creators will always prevent Access Copyright from fully and effectively representing creators’ copyright interests.” In other words, TWUC wants AC to be broken into two agencies, one representing the creators and the other the publishers. (Unfortunately, there is no mention which agency would do the collecting of the revenue, or would both do it…?) However, no arguments are presented about how the interests of creators and publishers are being misrepresented.

What prompted this motion? Although I am a member of TWUC, I was not at the AGM and can only speculate based on some of the subsequent discussions I have read (e.g., Creator’s Access Copyright). Some creators have always had a beef with how AC conducts its business, especially the expenses AC incurs, which of course reduce the royalties available for distribution to creators and publishers. Comparisons are made with a similar program, the Public Lending Right Commission (PLR), which pays authors for the loaning of their books by public libraries. However, the two programs could not be more different. The PLR depends on government funding through the Canada Council for the Arts—in other words, taxpayers’ money. It does not have to go out and negotiate licences for its funding from businesses, schools and organizations or take legal action against violators of copyright law. Therefore, the expenses of the PLR are much lower than those of AC, and they should be. No, AC is a completely different kettle of fish that requires considerable staff to negotiate and maintain licences, to continually be vigilant to copyright violations and to seek redress. As well it is researching and seeking to find licensing solutions to the ever-changing world of digital copying which is the biggest challenge to copyright facing all creators and publishers.

Still, the criticism of Access Copyright expenses continues. Now, I’m no expert on AC but as the OWC representative to it, I have attended a couple of its AGMs, and I have studied its last two annual reports (2010 report available on the AC web site). Yes, its expenses take a significant portion of the budget, but to my mind for good reasons (as listed above). I have no doubt that some of those expenses could be lowered through greater efficiencies etc. and that is why there is a board of directors (made up of representatives from creator and publisher organizations) to look after such things.

Timing

So why make this motion now? In my opinion, the timing could not be worse. Copyright law is under attack in this country as educational institutions, boards and ministries seek so-called “fair dealing” status for the copying of material for educational purposes. Fair dealing means that such copying would not be subject to copyright protection. In the last parliament the minority Conservative government introduced a bill (C-32) that would have amended Canada’s Copyright Act including placing educational copying under fair dealing. Much of the revenue AC receives is from educational copying, and if that revenue should cease, royalty payments to creators and publishers would be greatly reduced. Indeed, the very existence of the reproductive collective would be at risk. (As well, such an amendment would violate the international Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, of which Canada is a signatory.)

Fortunately, Bill C-32 died on the order paper when the minority Conservative government was defeated in a motion of non-confidence last spring. However, in the federal election that followed the Conservatives won a majority government and undoubtedly will introduce a bill similar to C-32 into parliament. Now, such a bill amending the Copyright Act is necessary as the current act is way behind the times, especially in terms of digital technology. However, if the government has not learned the error of its way with regard to educational copying, the bill could be a disaster for creators, publishers, and in the long term, the quality of content we all read.

My point is that Access Copyright has been in the forefront of the opposition to the particular educational amendment. They had the funding and expertise to research the issue and provide much needed information for creators and publishers to lobby Members of Parliament about how the educational amendment would affect publishing in this country. As a result, AC has been under considerable attack from the powerful proponents of the educational amendment. One of the most vocal proponents is Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, who is especially upset with having to pay for copying material. He has been attacking AC in blogs and elsewhere. However, he seems to have difficulty reading and understanding AC’s annual reports (see AC’s rebuttal to Geist [PDF]).

Unfortunately, some creators have taken this misinformation to heart, and the result—in my opinion—has been the TWUC motion to re-organize Access Copyright. However, to my mind that is playing right into the hands of those who wish to take creator’s copyright away. Geist argues for a free market of information on the Internet, with the emphasis on “free.” If he succeeds, there will be less funding available to finance quality writing in this country. He is already citing TWUC’s motion as evidence that AC must go.

So, again I ask the question: Why make this motion to split or significantly reorganize Access Copyright now when there is so much at stake in this country with regard to the protection of copyright? Could not the issue be raised once the copyright amendment act has been passed, and we have better knowledge of what the new landscape will look like? Or are some writers so upset with no longer receiving an equal portion of the repertoire royalties that they are willing to destroy the goose that lays the golden egg?

Welcome!

Welcome to my  blog about the writing business. I am a freelance writer in Canada, and have earned much of my living from writing over the last 30 and more years. I write a monthly column for the Alberta Outdoorsmen magazine and have written and published many articles and books about the outdoors and the environment. Some examples of my writing are available at my website and on my “Don Meredith Outdoors” blog. This blog is where I cogitate and vent about the issues facing writers, especially in Canada, but also the world. The digital age has brought  many benefits and perils and much needs to be aired and discussed.

Please feel free to comment and let me and others know how you feel and what you believe can and should be done.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are my own, and unless otherwise noted, do not represent those of organizations that I might represent or of which I am a member.