Supreme Court to Hear Online Reprint Case

Markar writes "The Supreme Court has decided to hear a case involving on-line copyright issues. Freelance authors have sued for having their stories/articles stored in online databases and CD ROMs without their permission. The freelancers assert that separate permission is required to do so. Complete story is on Salon." This is a big issue for a lot of media outlets which have huge databases of old articles compiled by freelancers.

Comments

Happened in The Netherlands too.

[Raindeer]

Here in The Netherlands, the same thing happened. The Freelancers won. Greetz, Rudolf

Any past caselaw that applies?

[Markar]

Does anyone know if there is any past caselaw that applies? For instance, what happened when videotapes of films were first sold? Did actors recieve any royalities? If not, were they able to recover royalities?

Re:Any past caselaw that applies?

[edwardames]

The most interesting caselaw that applies to this upcoming case is of course the 2nd Circuit opinion which the court wants to review. Here's a link to Tasini v New York Times.

About actors in movies, and whether they should've gotten additional payments for re-releases on video would have depended on the contractual agreements made at the time they agreed to perform in the movie. Generally, under the present copyright act, an actor's contribution, if somehow copyrightable, would be covered by the "work for hire" provisions of the law, with copyright owned by whoever hired the actor. I would think though that whether an actor recieved further payments would depend on the actor's contracts with his or her studio, and not on any rights under copyright.

The case up for review, Tasini, is different in that the plaintiff-writers were all freelance contributors to newspapers or magazines, not employees, and thus there is no work for hire issue.

Tasini revolves around a provison of the copyright act aimed at periodical publications, privileging compilation publications (such as magazines or newspapers or encyclopedias), in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, to republish freelancers' contributions in later issues or editions or revisions of the publication, without incurring copyright infringement liability.

Very roughly summarized, the newspapers and magazines who have been sued in Tasini failed to secure electronic republication rights to the articles in question that were licensed to Lexis-Nexis and another firm, and so they are now trying to argue that the republication on Lexis-Nexis is merely a revision (as that is meant in the act) of the original paid-for publication of the freelancers' articles, and thus there is no infringement of the freelancers' copyrights.

I understand that it is now routine for freelancers to be required to agree to give up electronic republication rights, but six or seven years ago, when this case started, that was not so.

The Supremes don't often take Copyright cases, but when they do, the results are usually important. This one could turn out to be interesting. Considering who the defendants are, I would expect that we will hear quite a bit about this one before it is over: that's what happens when someone sues companies that buy ink by the barrel.

Ed

Standard dsclaimer applies. Not meant as specific legal advice, but for general info only. Talk to a lawyer if you need legal advice, and don't depend on a random posting you read on slashdot in making decisons, etc... Or you are a fool.

Whoops. Broken link to the case

[edwardames]

I'll try posting it again, but if slashdot messes with the long url, keep in mind there is not supposed to be a whitespace in front of 979181. Tasini is at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&case=/data2/circs/2nd/ 979181.html.

Ed

How does this really hurt the authors?

[raistlinjones]

I mean, really. Is there any way that posting their stories online in addition to the printed version of the story hurts them in any way? Their story is part of the magazine/newspaper, and they already got paid for their services. The newspaper paying for thier story should basically bestow rights upon them to do with the story whatever they want, including posting it on their website.

Today was just a day fading into another-Counting Crows

Re:How does this really hurt the authors?

[Detritus]

It isn't that simple. Newspapers and magazines commonly buy the "first North American serial rights", which allows them to publish the material once, in North America. The writer does not have to sell all of his rights, he can sell a limited set of rights.

Better Tasini links

[edwardames]

I found a good article about Tasini at Gigalaw. The article discusses litigation concerning the switch from movies to videos.

Ed

Background info on NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. TASINI

[Anne Marie]

NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. TASINI

Be sure to read more coverage from the Washington Post and the 2nd -Circuit decision under review so that you come to this discussion prepared. If you "are not a lawyer", then you have no authority to speak, and you should sit this one out.

A date has not yet been set for the hearing of this case.

This decision is not about the DMCA. This is about the Copyright Act of 1976, though parallels to recent failed efforts to sneak in clauses about work-for-hire are apparent.

The lower court ruled in favor of authors. Will the Supreme Court uphold that decision?

The decision was reached solely on statutory language and congressional intent, not constitutional language. The Supreme Court has historically given free reign to Congress to play with copyright however it wishes under Article I.

An important precedent not raised in this particular filing is Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., which held (unanimously) that corporations couldn't claim copyright on mere facts by copyrighting page numbers or other artifacts/artefacts of typography. A reversal of the lower decision would undermine Feist by allowing corporations to claim their own copyright irrespective of authorship simply by the act of publishing (inserting those typographical artifacts).

Nader LOST, so expect corporate interests to dominate an unfriendly Supreme Court for the foreseeable future. Had he won, he could've used his appointments to turn the Court arround, but the American people have spoken, and they've (we've) chosen the plutocratic enslavement of the populace by CEOs who've sublimated their testosterone-driven sexual energies into the pursuit of capital at all cost to the human (living!) experiences of their subjects. We had our chance, but we blew it, and now we have to live with an ineffectual corporate president and a divided congress.

This decision will come as the tenures of as many as four Supreme Court justices are in question in this next Presidential cycle. Expect Rehnquist to chalk this critical decision up on his legacy with Dickerson v. US (upholding Miranda), City of Boerne v. Flores (reasserting state sovereignty in the US system of federalism), etc. If Bush prevails in Florida, then Rehnquist will all but certainly retire in the next couple years.