David Wallis founded the online syndicate Featurewell last year to create a go-to site for editors seeking to buy well-written articles. A freelance journalist himself, Wallis vowed to showcase high-quality writing, and he promised contributors 60 percent of the proceeds from sales. Many writers, including Pulitzer Prize winners, jumped at the chance, contributing profiles and news features, health columns, sports stories and travel narratives.

Wallis, 34, has since become an outspoken advocate for writers. Now he's planning a series of quarterly readings in Manhattan. The first, scheduled for Tuesday, June 26, will feature contributors Jimmy Breslin, Daniel Asa Rose and Gayle Forman. We asked Wallis, who lives in Manhattan, about online syndication, writers' rights and the new reading series.

Has Featurewell developed as you'd envisioned it would?

Yes -- with reservations. We have attracted over 600 clients, including editors at Web sites, magazines and newspapers throughout the world. I thought it would be fairly easy to get writers interested in the concept of Featurewell, and that has turned out to be true. Now we have over four hundred writers. Could we make more sales? Sure, but we've sold over $60,000 in stories in eight months, with hardly a marketing budget. Every time I write a check to a writer I'm thrilled. I really believe we are on course for rational growth.

David Wallis

Who's buying?

Print publications purchase most of the articles we sell, but we do have a few Web providers out there who buy. I don't release client information as a courtesy to clients, and because I don't want to give away competitive information. But major publications in the following countries have bought from me: Australia, New Zealand, England, Ireland, Hong Kong, Austria, Canada, Mexico, Malaysia and Singapore. And of course, alternative papers in this country purchase articles. We want more.

Why aren't more online publications buying?

First off, the marketing effort I've made has been mainly directed at print publications. I think they're more lucrative, and they'll be around next year. Web sites have been going under. I think we will market more to the Web in the future. I believe there will be a second wave of Internet companies that require content. I think this second wave will have more of a likelihood to succeed and prosper because they'll follow standard business procedures, including the need for profit. You know, the "P" word.

When do you think that will happen?

I think we're seeing it already. I see investors starting to think about the Web in more nuanced ways, starting to sniff around. Those who have been scared away are done and gone. It makes sense that there will be others who will learn from the mistakes of the first wave. Do I expect companies to give away products in the future in order to lure advertisers? No. I think Steve Brill may be onto something with the purchase of Inside. I think the idea of publications charging a modest fee -- I think he's talking about $3.95 a month -- could work. Look at the Wall Street Journal's success. That's one content provider that has done well with the subscription model. By charging a modest fee, Brill will attract readers. He also wants to charge about 40 cents an article. I'm not so sure the public is ready yet for micropayments. In five years, I believe micropayments will be more common. Micropayments will be easier when you don't think twice about a 10-cent click. Right now, you do.

Are you optimistic about the future of advertising online?

I believe that advertisers are going to come back. I don't know that they'll pay the rates they once did, but the fact of the matter is that the Web is a tool to extend the brand, and marketers will always pay for the ability to extend the brand.

What about the future of syndication online?

The big Web-based syndicators are teetering. I don't think they'll survive. You can't sell articles for $3. Screaming Media and iSyndicate are willing to practically give away an article, and that's all about quantity, not quality. I think as the Web develops, there will be a desire from publishers for quality, not just quantity. The second thing I see happening is the death of companies like APBNews.com, which did wonderful journalism but had bloated staffs. That's a thing of the past. There will be publications that are lean and mean but need quality, and I emphasize quality in italics. I think that's what we are.

How many articles are you turning away these days in the interest of quality?

I turn down 75 percent of the articles that are submitted, and I put up about 40 stories a week. I'm being very picky. I want the style to be strong, the reporting to be great. I really don't care all that much about the topic or the point of view. We're nonpartisan. I try to focus on great writing, which is one of the reasons I launched the reading series. An arcane story that's well written but won't interest an international audience will be less likely to find its way onto my site than a story that interests the Czechs and Chinese.

What percentage of your buyers are foreign?

Sixty.

That's a lot.

That's the business of syndication. The same story that will earn you $50 in America will earn you $500 in Europe. I'm always surprised at how cheap American newspapers are, so I'm focusing on the international publications.

You mentioned last year that you were hoping to attract investors to Featurewell. Any luck so far?

I realized early that it would be hard to get investments, so we're growing organically. We're making some money, but there's huge growth potential. To take a leap ahead, I'll probably need some investment, but I can certainly do just fine without it.

You've become an outspoken advocate for writers. How did that come about?

I got pissed off. Any independent journalist who reads the contracts has seen writers increasingly lose rights as publishers increasingly grab as much as they can and refuse to share a piece of the pie. I think the worst case I've seen has been a magazine called Savoy. Savoy has a contract that is not only an all-rights contract, but they penalize the writer 25 percent if he or she is a day late on an assignment, and for every five days that a piece is late, they deduct another 25 percent. So theoretically after 15 days, if let's say a source has gone away and you can't complete the article, they have a right to run the piece without paying you. Independent professional writers with a sense of dignity should not write for a magazine like that. I think writers increasingly have to take stock of why they're in the business. It's usually not to be taken advantage of. As a collective, we need to have some cajones and start being able to walk away. (Officials at Savoy declined to comment on these statements.)

Do you find online publications any friendlier?

Both print and online are increasingly pushing onerous contracts on writers.

What online publications do you suggest writers watch out for?

Salon, of course. Salon has a contract that is not beneficial to writers. Salon will negotiate, by the way. Just say no. That's my advice to writers. If a publication wants the piece and is the first to run it -- and I'm not just talking about Salon here but any publication -- assume it will negotiate with you. Now you may not want to fight the New Yorker. You have to pick your battles. There are plenty of accomplished writers out there who can say no and negotiate better terms. It feels so personal to writers. Writers need to distance themselves a touch.

How about the question of copyrights online?

First of all, most writers don't realize that when you don't sign a contract with a publication you own the copyright. You need a written contract in order to cede your rights. You can't go to war every time. Just try to sell first North American serial rights with an exclusionary period of between one and 90 days that allows you to resell the work at some point. Be very careful of agreements that ask for non-exclusive electronic rights, because what a magazine can then do is turn around, make a deal with Screaming Media or iSyndicate, sell your work to a hundred Web sites and not pay you a dime. Give publishers a certain period of time to put a piece on the Web. And don't be ridiculous about it. If you're getting big money and being sent to Rio, think twice about raising a stink. However, if you're being paid a buck a word by a magazine that is not the market leader, you need to fight a bit. Often, editors will say okay. They want to be first. One of the reasons I started Featurewell was that I'd heard writers being asked by editors, 'What are you going to do with these rights, anyway?' With Featurewell, we've edited that excuse from the lexicon of independent journalism.

Do you think today's Supreme Court ruling will change any of this?

I was thrilled to hear of the Supreme Court's decision. Who would have thought that I would see eye-to-eye with Justice Scalia? However, I warn freelancers not to divvy up their winnings just yet. The question of damages now must be decided by Lower Court. And that court may not be as generous as the National Writer's Union might hope for. It's an enormous emotional victory. And having the pat-on-the-back telling us that we weren't crazy helps us negotiate. Rather than just practical, it reinforces the spines of freelancers.

Do you think controversy over Napster and artists' rights has affected attitudes about printed material online?

Napster galvanized a lot of creators: musicians sued Napster; photographers walked out of SYGMA when the agency tried to grab their rights during the digitization process; actors went on strike when advertising agencies didn't want to share proceeds from cable revenues; video game designers started to band together to fight unfair practices by their clients; and these days writers join Featurewell or cross out a clause on a contract they don't like. The Napster debate brought much needed attention to issues that affect every creator. The dissemination of our work is a freedom of expression issue. We're not being censored while reporting in Zimbabwe, but I think it's very important that writers decide what's ultimately going to happen to their work.

Any other big issues you see facing writers?

The pay rates have been frozen. Unless you're Dominick Dunne you're going to get between a buck and $2 a word, and those rates have been frozen for quite a while. There has been no cost of living increase for the lowly writer. Also, publications take far longer to pay their bills on average than many other businesses. You should not have to effectively loan money to a publication and boost its cash position in order to write for it. Too often, publications take advantage of writers, not only by not paying them enough for their work, but inexcusably and outrageously, by delaying payment for the reimbursement of expenses. I question whether their own expense reports are taking as long to be paid. The third area that independent journalists face is the arbitrary and wacky use of the kill fee. I think that if there's got to be a kill fee, and there are good reasons for it, that it should be raised to 50 percent for professional writers. Rarely is a story killed because of bad faith or poor work by the writer. Often, a story is killed because of a change in editorial direction, petty office politics, being scooped, or photos that weren't up to snuff.

What do you suggest writers do if they are stiffed?

Unfortunately, writers don't have a strong union. We need a guild, like a Screen Actors Guild, more than we need a union. On a one-to-one basis, the key is to wrangle with editors when you can. Then write a letter that's persuasive, without typos, to the editors' boss, and copy the magazine's legal counsel. If that doesn't work, take them to small claims court. You may never work for the publication again, but it may not be a publication you want to work for.

On a lighter note, you have a Featurewell reading coming up. How did that come about?

The Internet is a wonderful tool, but it's rather impersonal. I thought it would be great for my writers to get to meet each other and hoist a glass of free wine and nibble on some cheese. I thought of a quarterly writing series. Usually 'quarterly' is associated with a boring academic journals or taxes. We've decided to change the image of the quarterly. So I've launched this reading series on June 26 at The Roger Smith Hotel. There's limited space. ... Writers should ... arrive early because their notorious reputation as schnorrers is true, and the wine will go fast.

Schnorrers?

(Laughs.) Yes, Schnorrers. Just a minute. Let me get the Dictionary of American Slang. (Pause.) Okay, as the dictionary says, a schnorrer is a person who sponges off of friends and relatives. There are two usages: 'Here comes that schnorrer from down the street. Look poor.' And then, 'Buy your own ciggies if you don't like mine. Schnorrers can't be choosers.'

Got it. Any events planned for West Coast schnorrers?

Not yet, but I know there are a lot of schnorrers on the West Coast. (Laughs.)

Are you still writing much?

On occasion. I just did a piece for Travel and Lesiure. I'm a contributing editor at MBA Jungle, a business magazine run by friends of mine. I also keep my Washington Post column in the travel section. And I'm working on a forthcoming book I can't talk about it. It's the quiet life for me.