Re: Important News for Writers (long)

[Tammy Dysert <Tammy_Dysert -at- THEMONEYSTORE -dot- COM>]

Hate to say it, but the best way to protect yourself against this rule is
to get insurance. Most companies won't even work with independents unless
they are insured for errors and omissions...
---------------------- Forwarded by Tammy Dysert on 07/07/98 02:04 PM
---------------------------


Barbara Karst-Sabin <Phillinion -at- AOL -dot- COM>
07/07/98 02:02 PM


Please respond to Phillinion -at- AOL -dot- COM

To:   TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
cc:    (bcc: Tammy Dysert)
Subject:  Re: Important News for Writers (long)




In a message dated 98-07-07 16:34:25 EDT, mhunterk -at- BNA -dot- COM writes:
<< For technical writers in particular, this
 Article 2B would make *us* responsible for the accuracy and content of our
 work--not our clients. In short, a client could give us lousy copy and no
 help and expect us to create a masterpiece. If we don't, they could take
 action, like withhold payment. >>
I heard something to this effect among a group of tech writers a couple of
months ago.  The worry then was that, in addition to withholding payment, a
company might choose to sue the "offending" writer for the cost of
reprinting.
Then there's always the possibility of an error in an equipment manual
which
would lead to physical injury or damaged property...how's that for giving
you
paranoid nightmares?
This just means to me that I will not only document every time I cannot get
the appropriate information from the SME or everytime the reviewers fail to
answer questions or address issues I have queried, I will hang onto that
material until hell freezes over. \;+)))  I would, however, think that few
companies would resort to these tactics, simply because there are too many
steps in the process over which the tech writer has no control.
One hopes,
BJ