Slashdot Mirror
Supremes Hear Case of Publisher Piracy
tuiterwyk writes "According to this article on CNN.com, the US Supreme court is considering whether print publishers who have paid a free-lance writer for an article or story are able to include that work in their on-line or CD versions without the permission of the original author or without being required to pay additional compensation. The impact on on-line searches and newspaper sites could be dramatic." See the New York Times story as well. Publishers such as AOL/Time Warner have no problem pirating the work of freelance writers to sell for a profit - when it's their profit. Note: I have not been able to find any article by any major publisher that describes what the publishers are doing (distributing copyrighted works without permission, for money) as "piracy", please post a comment with a link if you know of one.
As some of you may be aware, in Hollywood there is an impending strike between screenwriters, represented by the Writers Guild of America, west (WGAw) and the film companies, represented by the Alliance of Motion Pictures and Television Producers (AMPTP) curiously made up of the same companies you'll find in such organizations as the MPAA.
One of the issues the writers are disputing with the megacorporations is over the Internet. Let me quote the WGA's report on the negotiations:
The AMPTP... have also proposed that for the reuse of motion pictures and television programming on the Internet they would pay nothing for any product produced before May of 2001. They expect to get them for free.
That's right. The film companies want sell movies on the Internet. They want to profit from it. But they're intending to compensate the writers of the movie....NOTHING. Sound familiar?
Why should the matter of storage make a difference? Whether it's delivered on a paper, viewed on microfiche, or viewed over a network shouldn't make a different.
Win the battle, lose the war. Only now winning the battle is all free lancers have left. The publishing industry has learned its lesson and is moving away from free lance style article licensing big time. Instead, authors have to sign over _all_ rights to their creations as works for hire and assign copyright to the people publishing it. Ultimately, I think you'll find they lose more than they gain out of this, no matter what happens.
Not if you actually read the instructions, that started with the phrase "in vi...."
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
If you don't like the contract, don't sign it. Take your work somewhere else. Bus tables to satisfy your addiction to food and shelter until you can get a better deal...
...and think about forming a union. "United we stand, divided we fall" and all that. If an entire class of people is getting shafted, that's one possible way to fight back.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Given that the work was done for a course that students *paid* to attend, is he allowed to simply take our work and walk away with it?
Have you talked to your parents (assuming they're footing the bill?) If I was such a parent and heard about this, I'd be going to talk to a lawyer.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
If it were such a simple matter as them trying to rip us off before we rip them off, it wouldn't be such an issue... But we've kinda got this hate triangle thing goin. Publishers are trying to rip off both artists and customers, and I've never heard of an artist trying to rip off the publisher, and customer theft of published materials is (in some markets "was") nominal.
Inconceivable!
It seems to me that there's the beginnings of a revolt here... singers/songwriters can stand up to the RIAA without shooting themselves in the head because they can now publish on the internet. Writers standing up to publishers because they now have other forums and means to publish their work. This could be beginning of the end for the media oligopolies. Or they could win the legal battle to retain their stranglehold on the american public and artists.
Inconceivable!
And don't forget about the radio station that got in trouble recently for broadcasting over the Internet without paying additional royalties. Same material, different distribution mechanism, additional royalty payment.
So, Michael, tell us how you really feel.
I know, from years of experience, that Slashdot has always wobbled on either side of the line between news source and bully pulpit. But this is going way too far.
Could we please save the acid-dripping rhetoric for a "Read More..." block, instead of the headline? If a issue is worth debating, it will stand on its own merit. We don't need the flamebait.
We're not scare-mongering/This is really happening - Radiohead
This sig intentionally left blank.
There was an interesting piece on Marketplace last night (radio show on NPR) where they were talking about just this.
It seems that the New York Times has an interesting position here - while they have regularly posted rants in the editorial column against napster and what they refer to as the "looting" of other people's intellectual property, they're firmly in favor of being able to use freelance material without paying for it again. The New York Times has a high percentage of freelance stuff in its pages, and it would be quite a financial blow if they were to have to pay writers for the second go around.
The point is moot in some cases, since many freelance writers sign contracts before they turn their stuff over that says that the company can do whatever they want with it in perpetuity. Of course that's a shit deal, but if you're starving and you've got something to sell (like a freelance article) you take whatever terms will put money in your pocket.
Whether or not that's a fair application of the law is of course an entirely different debate.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
John, you are very naive. Why the hell don't you just sell first serial rights? If the publisher presents you with an all rights contract, you don't have to sign it. Renegogiate! Why shouldn't the publisher give you a cut every time they use an opportunity to make some more money out of your article? Your attitude is rather like being in a regular job, getting paid a salary for (say) 40 hours a week, and putting in an extra 10 or 20 hours unpaid -- oh, wait, there are people who do that...
Whoa! That's not at all what the cited document says. It is clear:
"What is a work made for hire? Although the general rule is that the person who creates the work is its author, there is an exception to that principle; the exception is a work made for hire, which is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or a work specially ordered or commissioned in certain specified circumstances. When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author. See Circular 9."
Publishers have a history of being rather unconcerned with compensating writers. This is most obvious on college campuses. When professors put together a course packet for students to buy at the local copy store, the copy store is legally obligated to pay the publisher of the works. (Some copy stores may simply ignore this, but it isn't uncommon for pubishers to threaten copy stores with lawsuits.) However, the publisher does necessarily own the work! Even if the copyright is held by the author, the writer will never see a dime.
One of my professors organised the photocopying of a large course packet so her students could avoid the $80 fee. Whenever she includes her own work, she must battle the copy stores to NOT send money to the publishers of her own work.
Who will win? Publishers have lots of lawyers. Authors have few.
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
I had to sign something.
I didn't get paid but at least I knew about it.
If I hadn't signed, they would have had to run the CD with only a stub of my article. (They would have had to write an abstract which would then have been their own to print.)
This stuff on reprints and "collections" gets tough.
If the publisher paid for an article, it depends on the contract between publisher and author as to whether the contract was restrictive to a single medium and it was specified.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Now, I'm all in favor of applying the inflammatory "privacy" epithet to this case (way to go, Michael!), but there are a few things which you should clear up:
Assume a paper (call it "Paper"), has purchased a story from a freelancer.
The Paper obtains right to publish it as part of an issue of the paper. They also obtain the right to include the work in online or CD versions of the paper. There is absolutely no debate about this. These are considered alternate versions of the paper (akin to a morning and evening edition).
The current case does not test that at all.
What is in dispute is the Paper's ability to sell that article to an online database (read: Lexis/Nexis), where it will be collated with thousands of other articles, and become searchable by author, by subject, etc.
The freelancers claim that this is not simply an "alternate version" of the original newspaper issue, but is in fact an entirely new product.
I believe they make a reasonable argument.
BTW, the publishers are trying to scare the court into denying the freelancer's their copyrights by claiming that, if the decision goes against the publishers, they will be forced to remove huge amounts of material from the online archives, which will cause grave damages to scholarship. This seems like absolute hooey to me -- if there is a market for those articles, a means will be found to sell them, and for the profits to go to the authors.
-Dan
I have written a truly remarkable operating system which this sig is too small to contain.
I don't know where you're buying CDs and DVDs, but at the local stores around here we don't have to sign any sort of contract or license to buy them, which means the customer retains the full rights of Fair Use and First Sale. I have the right to do anything with my new DVD, whether it's playing it on a DVD player, ripping it off and watching it as an MPEG, or using it as an expensive coaster. I haven't bought rights to redistribute copies of it, of course, but everything else is fair game.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I actually didn't negotiate the deal...it was their standard policy, but it seems to me that as a freelance writer, it's not too terribly unseemly to consider including that kind of language in the contract.
Oh yeah...contract. You ought to have something in writing. If you can't negotiate what you want, at least make sure that you understand what they are offering.
-h-
I know this is a huge place to rail on big business, but look at what the topic for this would be if it was in a publisher's trade magazine:
"Freelance Authors Ask Court to Invalidate Contracts"
This is not a case of publishers trying to screw writers. The freelance authors signed the rights to the content away to the publishers. The only thing that the freelance authors have to stand on is that placing the media into a different media is a "revision".
OK, so by that same argument is moving a song from a CD to an MP3 a revision, so you should have to pay for it again, because it's a different version of the song.
You can't have it both ways. The freelance writers are competent adults who signed contracts that gave the rights to the work to the publisher. If you take the stand that making that work electronic constitutes a revision of the work, you're opening the door wide open for everyone to charge you money every time you move something from paper to electronic media.
Oh, if they scan it, is that a revision or not? How about if they scan it and OCR it? How about if they hire a few dozen data entry clerks to type it in, is that a revision? How about if it's audio on a CD and you rip it to a WAV file and put it into an MP3. By the arguments of the freelancers, that's a revision.
rocketscientist.
Use. When I dub a CD onto a cassette to play in the car, it's for my use only. The publishers aren't converting the articles for their own use, they're converting them to make and sell copies in a format not covered by the original contract. They weren't given the right under those contracts to sell copies in electronic form, so they've no more right to do it than I have to distribute copies of their CD.
I mean, people here will bitch and moan about not being allowed to convert their music to any format they wish, why can the publishers not do the same? Is it because they make money off of it? Is that *really* enough of a difference?
Having not done feature articles, I don't know what the standard, legal practice is. Maybe the writer shouldn't get paid again as part of a compilation/web site, etc., maybe they should. I do know that if I were approached to do a feature article, I would make damn sure that the re-publishing rights were spelled out explicitly in the contract.
That said, I am more concerned with how this case has been/will be scoped by the courts because of the potential spillover effects. Normally when a writer's work has been out of print for a specific period of time, the rights to their work revert to him/her. Two current technologically based scenarios threaten this reversion process: publishing on demand (by which a company can print and sell just one book within the specified period, thereby retaining the rights), and the web, which in essence can be used to keep something "published" for years, merely by keeping an active link to it available to the outside world.
Then if someone does a CD-compilation from the web site, the work was never out of print, so the author is essentially still tied to whatever contract they negotiated up front. My guess is that 9 out of 10 times (if not 99 out of 100) the entity that is probably going to get screwed in such a scenario is the author.
On the other hand, a decision favoring the author(s) too much isn't necessarily good, because of the hated Sonny Bono extensions to the original and renewable copyright periods, potential tie ups via the DCMA (put encoding on the CD-ROM, there goes fair use...)
Please, feel free to take both or either sides of the discussion, because I for one really need to learn what the best possible decisions in this case would look like.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
I wanna hear what the Pips have to say about it.
Thank you, thank you, I will be here all week.
Superb, after all the vanity and hubris of "artistic control" and the dog-in-manger whinging about someone else making money off their efforts, and honest workman in the creative area.
Ditch diggers and road builders don't get paid per use of what their muscles build, what is so special about writing or other mental creative effort that deludes those who choose it into thinking they deserve a "slice of the pie" or a "cut of the action" and a life long, or life plus 75 years of payment for their endeavours?
I also agree with this poster that the hypocrisy is in the "pay once/charge often" approach of publishers.
It simply seems an intellectual snobbery to suggest that "work for hire" like the rest of us grunts, is beneath the dignity of "creatives."
It would be nice if people like that could get over themselves and stop being so perfectly precious.
Thanks for the reference. I stand corrected.
*pads off to spank certain peoples with the 'paddle of correction'*
Okay, I'm going to correct my correction.
:)
My information that commission work automatically becomes 'work for hire' did not come directly from the 'Copyright law definition' above, but second hand from a copyright lawyers. It appears that there is so much case law in favour of the publishers (or those commissioning work) that the 'work for hire' clause in the 'Copyright law definition' is next to useless.
At this point. I just give up. If one can't read legislature to determine what is and isn't allowed on this planet, and instead have to read through the lengthy annals of overpaid, pompous arrogants, then what's the point?
It really depends on the context. If a publisher has explicitely paid for a writer to write a particular document, then that is considered "Work for Hire", and the publisher retains all rights on that work. Ie, they can do what they want with it, and the original author can do nothing.
:)
If the author wants to restrict what the publisher can do with the works, then that needs to be written into the contract. If there's no contract, then the "Work for Hire" rule becomes the default.
Really, there's nothing evil or subversive about this. Standard practise. Authors (and other artists) just need to know the rules
Thus the debate is whether restructuring data is a "performance" and the stages of intermediate production. For example, in music, there is mechanical rights (access to raw material), synchronisation license (in conjunction with other media), public performance, excerption (embedding in other works). Abstract text data (and given XML, ultimately all data/schema can be represented in text)can be massaged in even more complication ways ranging from abstracts, quotations, reordered, structured, citations, mining, etc.
So who's right? Given the fact that Hollywood writers are striking (maybe the quality will go up when they import some Indian scriptwriters :-)), it shows that the issues are complicated and the power is on the side with the longest memory and biggest lawyers. Given that there's probably a backlog of (OK crappy but when did that stop Hollywood) scripts, it comes down who can blink first or is willing to eat. The traditional forms of dispute resolution (e.g. strikes) are less effectual in the case of mental activities as there are many substitutes.
The issue is a real conundrum. Publications gravitate towards the "star" system as the prospect of a few highly paid stars encourages a wide pool of low-level submissions creating a broad base but very narrow peak, effectively a trickle up effect as the interns are brow-beaten and compete among themselves (depressing their short-term value/cost) to subsidise the celebrities at the top. On the other hand studios hate the star system as they are dependent on limited resources (if they retire, switch employors, throw tantrum and quit) which is probably one reason why Disney views cartoons characters as inherently less risky (provide they can get their copyright control legally extended infinitely). This is one stituation where market forces are limited as despite logic, people can't resist the equivalent of a career lottery. If you accept that the media is driven by fads with a narrow window of earning opportunities (a la sport heros), then the loss of future revenue royalties is a significant factor. Think of the equivalent of contract professional programmer with highly specialised skills. If a company can distribute your ideas ad-infinum, then you are likely to be a very short-lived professional.
While the observation that corporations want to reduce contracts to employees and employees to slaves is probably unwarrented, ultimately increasing profits (which is what CEOs are promising Wall Street) have to come out of somewhere. If there is a fixed market (and it is defined by the total spare time people have for absorbing/reading material ... (witness the moaning about pop-up ads while browsing) then the only source is to embrace, extend, then extinguish the source (ie promise great career, work them to death for creative sweat, then drop them before the real profits start coming in from mass market penetration and merchandising). Note that CEOs don't exactly offer to sacrifice their salaries when the market rejects the recycled sequels they foster. Alternatively dilute the offerings with only including a small gem among the general dross (Pokemon, single track/album) as they don't want to risk a "bad" selection (and you wonder why people are flocking to Napster).
In summary, the issues are complicated and it will take the wisdom of Solomon, the patience of Job and some serious head-knocking before people are happy. If you really want to make money, don't invest in the sharemarket but buy legal firms.
LL
Objoke ... definition of lawyer ... imagine cartoon with one person pulling on the head and another the tail ... and the lawyer underneath milking the udder.
This book (which is a collection of advisory articles by Canadian writers) advises the writer to be careful about what rights they sign away. For example, you can sell 'first printing rights only' - which means that after the purchaser publishes your article/book/whatever, you then have the right to sell it again. You can also stipulate "English" rights only. (In Canada, that means you can sell it then to the French market for another fee.)
Now, the publisher may not want those terms, in which case you have to negotiate. But the point is, don't just sign the contract the publisher offers you. Of course he will draw the terms as widely as possible. And if you are willing to sign it, then there they go.
The ability of a writer to resell his work to another market is an important aspect of the writing business. The problem here as another poster said is really only the question of how much negotiating muscle you have. And how much you value your words.
It won't be described as piracy, because it isn't : Piracy is robbery with violence at sea.
The odd thing is not that you won't see copyright infringement (of print) described as piracy, but that you regularly see copyright infringement (of software) described that way. I understand the nature of the propaganda battle these guys won, but I still don't understand how they did it.
Fundamentally, the arguements in this come down to: does a different media require a different contract or fee? Selling the screenplay version of a popular book, apart from the print rights is one side. An encylopedia article, which appears in the print version, on CD and even on the website would represent the other side.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
In that light it sounds like the Napster user's defense; "I have the right to make a copy, therefore I have the right to give anyone access to the copy." He's right as far as internal databases are concerned. It's collecting money from third parties for access to the database that is the theft.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
In addition to not teaching grammar, it would appear that the schools aren't teaching spelling nowadays. What is this "modern block style" BS, anyway? It looks more like incoherent rambling with no beginning and no end.
If I ever end up raising kids, it looks more and more like I'll have to keep them out of the public schools. If this rot is what they're "teaching," I wouldn't want the mental midgets exponding these concepts anywhere near them.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Man, that's gotta suck. How do you take a CD image under linux? Or a floppy one (which I, personally, use quite often)?
GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our stuff, please keep it our stuff.
Why should the matter of storage make a difference? Whether it's delivered on a paper, viewed on microfiche, or viewed over a network shouldn't make a different.
/. messages, but the authors of some messages said no? I believe there is a story or three about that in the archives (too lazy to look).
Wasn't someone writing a book (Katz?) and wanted to quote
Answering your question: I would imagine the two main differences are
(1) Size of audience: More people will read something put in TV Guide than on Slashdot.
(2) Permanence: Something published in a book will be around for a hundred years, something posted on the 'net could disapear with the next Service Pack.
TSR republished 250 back issues of thier "Dragon" magazine on a set of CDs, articles, ads, artwork and all. Some of the writers/artists were not happy about this, I wonder if the decision will re-open that wound. Oh well, I still have my set in any case.
(And no, I don't think I ripped anyone off, since I had already bought 95% of the issues on the CDs. I figure if I paid the cover price once, that covers the IP charges on other forms.)
I listen to Marketplace every day, it's a great program. But it's on PRI, Public Radio International, not NPR.
Andrew
Oh please, oh please, oh please, let the claim that it's fair use. Please, I just wanna see AOL Time Warner claiming that this is fair use of something that they already paid for. PLEASE have them open up that pandora's box.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
For balance, here's the link to the National Writers Union's page about the Supreme Court appeal, including background, the actual briefs filed, etc. (did you know that Ken Burns submitted an amicus brief on the side of the publishers? or that the American Library Association and the US Copyright Office sided with the writers?)
There's also a nice piece on "The Hypocrisy of the NY Times" that explains how the Times (and other publishers) have been trying since 1995 to make their theft legal through "all rights" or "work-for-hire" contracts (which were not the norm before). Here's an excerpt:
Student work is generally the property of the student, and work produced in group projects is the joint property of the group members. The professor would therefore need to get your approval for any subsequent publication.
Note that this is not the case if students do not own their own work. Seeing as you are not an employee, however, the university could not claim ownership of your work without your consent, so I do not see how student work would not be the property of the student.
Note also that declaring his intent to appropriate student work at the beginning of the semester does not constitute a formal contract, even if he explicitly stated that continuing with the course constituted acceptance of his right. Moreover, your university likely has policies regarding the appropriateness of such a request in the first place. In any case, any attempt to get you to sign such a contract before your grades have been reported would likely constitute duress; such an attempt would probably also violate stated university policy. Both the university and any potential publisher would likely want to know this before publication, and as a concerned party with partial ownership rights, it would not be inappropriate for you to bring it to their attention.
Intellectual property rights are actually quite neat and specific in academia; it is their application that can get messy. But not in this case.
~~~~~~
under-paid karma whore
What in the world does the singing group of yesteryear have to do with online rights? Have I missed something? Are they suing Napster too? :)
jason
jason
Have a good day?! Impossible! I'm at work!
Round about '96 - '97 Cigar Aficianado magazine decided to put the content of their back issues up on their website.
A while prior my father, Joe Harkins, had written an article for them on the history of pool. He noticed they put his article online and got a bit bent out of shape as he'd never agreed they could publish the article online. He sent them a few nastygrams and, I believe, got in touch with a lawyer.
CA backed down and removed the article so he let it drop. This sounds pretty similar to what's happened here.
If you want to contact him for more details, hit his website at travelthe.net for an e-mail address, I don't remember it offhand. Oh, and beware- he's pretty cantankerous.
Unrelated comment first - You're looking for comments from a major publisher where they admit to pirating the works of freelancers? That would be like getting Shawn Fanning to admit that Napster exists primarily to pirate copyrighted music. Not going to happen...
Anyway, I've done some freelance writing in the past few years, and most of the time the contract I've worked from has been a flat, per page payment. If I write 4 pages of publicity material, I get $400. Pretty simple stuff. However, one thing I've seen often is as part of the payment agreement, I've had to agree to surrender my right to future payment for republication in other media. In other words, they pay me the money as a flat, one time deal. After that, I still get credited as the author, but I don't recieve any future payment. It's not something that (at least in my experience) is snuck past the author by a sneaky publisher, it's a part of the deal, and if you don't like it, don't sell them the work.
OTOH, I do get a little annoyed whenever I see something I've written reused, and I never was told. It is an artistic creation of ine, and when it is republished, sometimes resulting in thousands of dollars for the company I feel shafted that I only got a few hundred dollars for my work. But hey, next time I write for them, I bring that up in the price negotiation and usually I get better paid the second time around.
Bottom line, pay attention to what you're signing away in the contract, just like any other legal document (be it an employment contract, and waier, etc.).
-Jason
If I could only live my life with my threshold at 4...
I think it would depend on what kind of rights the author originally agreed to.
If the author specified that (s)he retained copyright and granted only one time print use, then putting it online is wrong.
If the publisher managed to actually get the copyright transferred to the publisher, then the author would be SOL.
Isn't it possible, even likely, that the people cracking the game copy protection and distributing the games referred to themselves as pirates before the Industry did?
-----
That rule has been deprecated. Whoever invented it was a moron.
--
Lord Nimon
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
As I read somewhere yesterday, this is basically a squabble about if electronic publication rights were implicit or not in freelance contracts, for a short period where they were not explicitly mentioned.
So no, you're not going to find publishers calling it piracy, because they do believe they have every right to be doing this.
I'd go for a search, but I'm feeling lazy. The interesting news will be what the Supremes decide to do about it.
The idea here is relatively simple: check out Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
To promote progress, writers must be given incentives to write. That not only means a way to make a living, but an incentive to continue creating new works. If, after a reasonable time, the profit stops coming from old work, that's a pretty powerful incentive to create something to restore the income!
BTW, you need not wait for 50 years after an author's death: it's up to 70 years now! Or, for corporate works, over 95 years from publication or 120 years from inception, whichever comes first. Oh, and there's no guarantee that you can obtain a legitimate copy at any point during the term of the copyright, either. No responsibility at all comes with that copy "right"...
How's that for being completely unreasonable?
The Library of Congress has a great FAQ on copyright issues. See Question 46 for length of copyright, for example.
IANAL either, but I would have to say that no matter what the legal boilerplate on the the forum says, the fact remains that companies are not legally able to profit off of volunteer labor. AOL and Everquest are going through this right now. I doubt that the legal fees would make it worthwhile to go after the coffee mug, but the law would be on the side of the writer, I think.
If they were using the web to gather information, that is one thing. If they were directly reprinting information, then I think that would be questionable. :)
br.I agree that it probably wouldn't be worth the fight, but I would still reserve the right to be angry about it and say nasty things aout them on Slashdot
what a nice apples-to-oranges comparison you make!
You can only sell a ditch or a road once, and then it isn't yours anymore. These corps force crappy signing terms for authors and then sell that article over and over and over and over...
Hi!
I've been a freelance writer for years--and I'm surprised that the Supreme Court regards this case as being worth the trouble to even review. Every publisher I've ever dealt with has paid me for "all rights" to an article--whether in the next issue of the magazine, in a reprint they sell to a vendor, or if (fat chance) they turn my article into a movie script. I've had articles reprinted in other languages, reprinted on CD-ROM, and published on websites. All I ever got paid for was the initial article.
Did I get ripped off? No--because that was the bargain. I write 3000 words on a given topic, I get paid a few bucks, and that's that. If the magazine publisher can figure out a way to distribute the article in a different form, and they can make a few extra bucks, that only gives them that much more incentive to ask me to write the next article.
Is this hypocrisy by the big media companies?
For the most part, I don't think so. When I sell an article I'm selling all rights to it--so the publisher can reproduce that content "in any form or by any means" (quote from actual contract) without paying me any additional compensation.
So what's the big deal? Frankly, I'd be positively floored if any publisher didn't essentially have the same contract--they buy all rights. I've written for half a dozen programming magazines, for "popular" magazines, and for a major children's magazine--every single one of them bought all rights. If my name were John Grisham or Stephen King my agent might be able to negotiate a better deal--but I'd be really, really surprised if better than 1% of freelance articles are bought on anything other than "all rights" terms.
Is this hypocrisy?
No--this isn't. When I buy a DVD or a music CD, I'm not buying all rights--I'm just buying the right to play the content on the DVD or CD. The media companies could (yeah, right) offer "any media" versions of the same content at a different price. Then if you wanted to convert the content to MPEG or some other format you could.
On the other hand...
What is blatantly hypocritical is the coming fight in Hollywood over residuals. Every time a TV episode, or a movie, or a commercial airs, the writers and the performers get paid a fee. For many actors residuals become a lifelong source of income--minor players in the 1970s mega-hit "M*A*S*H" continue to earn substantial income from reruns. The studios cry poor--they want to end residuals and pay on an "all rights" or "work-for-hire" basis. In other words, they want to buy creative content on an "all rights" basis; they want to sell that same creative content on a per-use basis. (They will not, for instance, sell "all rights" to, say, ER to your local TV station.) That's hypocrisy.
"You do not have permission to publish this comment on your website."
Hrm, do I have permission to quote your comment in my post?
What about if there is this huge message before you went into the forum that basically reads... "We are using this forum for the sole purpose of gathering material for an article that we will be publishing in ; if you do not wish your opinion to be published in this magazine, then do not post here... there will be no compensation for your writing other than that warm feeling of having some of your words published in the magazine"?
Personally, i would think that would suffice enough that you would get no compensation for something that you wrote in that forum. I guess, i would look at that and go, its not worth the fight, but I suppose someone might go in and do that just for the principal of the matter.
Though, looking at that... I guess it would come down to the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. If you didn't want your opinions published, you should simply not post there (this is again assuming that they put up that disclaimer).
First off, IANAL...
This all depends on how they put this forum up for use. Do they say somewhere when you are using it, that any and all comments may be used in the publication that sponsors the site? If they did, then they can use your comments with or without the coffee mug (however, you might get a coffee mug out of it, since they valued your opinion and might actually want more). If they didn't put that up there, then I really have no idea what the legal ramifications would be. You could view it as a donation to the community, but I'm not sure that would do much to protect you. As I have no idea where to go with this I'll just leave it.
It really all depends on the purpose of the web page... if the company is using it to get more stuff to print in their dead-tree form, then they could use their stuff. However, without that, I'm pretty sure you are perfectly legal in asking for your coffee mug (and maybe even some coffee to fill it with).
Information wants to be free! (Unless it's mine, then it wants to be appropriately compensated for.)
--SC
You read fiction? I write it! Lemme know what you th
The Supremes are hearing this case? Dear me, what is our nation coming to when MoTown legends start making legal decisions. Soon they'll be interviewing Jennifer Lopez and Puff Daddy to get their opinions on DeCSS.
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
Many publication freelancer contracts, like the one I signed for my work, state that the publisher has the right to reproduce the article in full online, on CD-ROM, or on any future medium not yet invented or discovered.
This case won't affect all freelance work, especially recent work in the tech industry.
For a Jon Katz article?
--
Je t'aime Stéphanie
I work for a small publishing company, and we specialize in custom publishing. For most of our long-term clients, we have online versions of the custom publications. Most of the writing is done by freelance writers. The editors will usually specify up-front that they may put the writing online for the online version of the publication. For the most part, the witers agree, since it gets them more publicity. There are a few who charge a token amount, much less than the fee for the original piece, to have their work posted online. It works similarly for the free-lance photography we use to accompany the stories. Most photographers have a clause in their contract to allow for unlimited online use for a small fee, and a few allow it free. Occaisionally a photographer will try to charge twice the original amount if we ask for the rights to use their work online, and we usually refuse and find a substition.
If you think about collection copyrights.
Microfiche is a complete image of the original, as would scanned in (or even PDFs) of the original newspaper with everything in context.
Of course it depends on the contract, but were they paid for the article's original publication, or did they transfer ALL rights?
When you extract, collect, or otherwise create a different publication, it becomes a second discrete work. Sometimes collections of articles are published in books.
If you don't restrict anything, the newspaper can print a collection of a single author as a book and publish that without any further compensation, although it no longer has anything to do with a newspaper.
Again, it depends on the contract. Did they lease the article for that one contextual purpose, or did they buy all rights to any distribution?
And the question is probably if the contract doesn't say one way or the other, which way should the law assume it should be.
thank you for that; for some reason it just cracked me up completely.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Only if you're a stupid American. Brits don't care. It gets really confusing for technical discussion anyway. For instance:
To delete a line in vi, type "dd."
Do you type "dd." or just "dd"? This is important, because "dd." will actualy delete two lines.
------
Not a typewriter
Funny, I thought we'd known that for years.
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
Of course. I was simply advocating critical reading, as evidenced by my concluding statement, "as long as you keep that in mind, you can usually dig through all the bullshit and find out the real story". Additionally, I was warning of the dangers of complete omission, which can often be even more dangerous than hidden bias because you're not even aware there's anything there to be biased about.
So there ya go, my entire post reduced to an SAT choice.
Unrelated comment first - You're looking for comments from a major publisher where they admit to pirating the works of freelancers? That would be like getting Shawn Fanning to admit that Napster exists primarily to pirate copyrighted music. Not going to happen...
That's not unrelated at all. It's the whole reason it's going to be next to impossible to find decent coverage on this issue. Media outlets, like any other business, will do what they must to remain in business. In this age of giant conglomerates, they'll do what they must to keep their parent companies and their parent companies' other companies in business.
By way of example, notice how the definition of the word "stealing" has suddenly been changed by the mainstream media? Since when is making an unauthorized copy stealing? It's piracy, sure, but when I copy something, I'm not taking anything from the original owner. There's the specious argument, "you would have GIVEN them something otherwise", but of course that's generally false-- people who pirate hundreds of games or CDs weren't planning on buying all of them. But once major media started tossing the word "stealing" into their reports on Napster et. al., it went by almost unnoticed, until it had seeped its way into the standard discourse. Napster isn't stealing. It's piracy.
More blatantly obvious is this article, about a major case where Fox was sued by its reporters when they were fired for refusing to distort a story. The reporters were awarded $425,000. Sound familiar? Probably not, because few people reported on it. But it sure was a big story to me. But perhaps this quote from Fox's defense team will shed some light on the subject: "There is no law, rule or regulation against slanting the news."
They tell you what they want you to hear, and they just ignore what they'd rather you didn't know. As long as you keep that in mind, you can usually dig through all the bullshit and find out the real story.
The lawyer for TimeWarnerAOL said:
"He said electronic databases were simply revised versions of the original publications and additional payments were not required for including an article in a database."
Interesting that users have to pay for a media change. Want a CD on your MP3 player? Another CD? On a harddrive?
"If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
And I for one would like to thank you guys for producing the best stuff on the radio: to the best of our knowledge, marketplace, the world, prarie home companion. Now if the were just available in Arizona, life would be better here. It's too bad that when folks think of public radio, they immediately think NPR.
"The conduct of neither [party], if strictly examined, will be irreproachable." -Elizabeth Bennet
I'd like to know what the constitutional issue is that is allowing this to be brought before the Supreme Court. I'm guessing it's the Patent/Copyright clause, but I'm not sure.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Grammar nazi my ass.
But of course most of us listen to it on a NPR station. But they do say PRI every once in awhile. Thanks very much for a grear service.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
That is true but ask just about anyone who is listening to a public radio station what they are listening to and they will answer "NPR" I know that even when I know it is a PRI show that that is what I would say. I like that my local station carries both. :)
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
If the writer signs a contract with the publisher, then the contract controls what the publisher can and cannot do with the writer's work. If the writer doesn't sign a contract, then a particular clause in the federal copyright statute controls.
This clause was written over ten years ago for the specfic purpose of settling disputes like the one before the court. However, it predates the web, and it isn't quite clear how it should be applied to works that are republished online. Since the lower courts don't agree, the Supreme Court gets to decide.
The significance of this going forward is minimal. Once the court decides how to interpret the law, then writers and publishers will know what they are agreeing to when they do business without a contract; if they don't like those terms, then they will write contracts with terms that they do like.
BTW
Much as I'd like to see the big publishers get their wings clipped, I wouldn't call their behavior piracy. When a question of law is close enough to get to the Supreme Court, I think both sides are entitled to a presumption of good faith.
Are you sure? He said, "I thought that only quotes that incoporate an entire sentence -- or at least a sentence fragment -- used this rule." I, however, think slavish devotion to this rule is "looney".
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
Tasini is about whether copyright rights to new media are opt-in or opt-out. In other words, when you sell the New York Times rights to an article for their paper, do they get electronic rights if the contract doesn't specify - and electronic rights haven't really been invented as a publishing medium yet.
In the end, this case is about the past, not the future, though. Now, if you sell an article to a big publisher like the NYT, the contract does specify they get reprint rights in all media.
But don't let that stop the morons from ranting about big, evil publishers.
If the Supreme Court ruled in the publishers' favor on "fair use" grounds (or ruled against them based on the DMCA). Since content owners of all stripes have been trying to destroy fair use using the DMCA I'd like to see their own sword turned on them (one way or another).
Legally, if a magazine buys your short story, it is for publication only in that magazine - unless they've had you sign a contract covering other media, which is common now but wasn't five years ago. So if they then issue a book and want to include your story, they have to buy it from you again. But under current law if they merely reprint the issue of the magazine, they don't. What the Supreme's are facing is an argument from the Times and other publishers that putting the story in a large online database is the same as reprinting the magazine, and not the same as presenting the story in a fresh collection (like a book) that would require them buying it from you again. Since an online database is obviously less like a magazine than even a book is, this should be a slam dunk - if at least 5 of the Supremes weren't known to be crooked.
... so screw the authors."
Now, one claim that the publishers are making is "If we have to buy the stories again, gee, we can't afford that, and civilization can't afford for the old stories (which we bought before we had 'all rights' contracts standard) to be left out of the databases and forgotten
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Why is it that if *you* buy a cd, its yours and you feel that you have the right to convert to any format you wish and use in any format you wish,
That is true...
but when a company buys a story from a freelance writer, you don't think its theirs, that they can convert to digital format and do with as they wish.....
Actually, they can reprduce it for themselves as many times and in as many formats as they want but can't destribute it freely or make a profit off of it. That's what all those contracts you sign are for, to make it so that they can destribute it...*Snore*... and that's how they make a ton of money by fooling dopes.
Also see:"Coming Soon: Burn-Proof CDs", it's interesting.
REAL friends don't let freinds use Microsoft
As a long-time freelancer, I've noticed that there is a strange sameness to the freelancing contracts I'm told I have to sign in order to get assignments from magazines: I am required to hand over world-wide rights in any medium, present and future, for a lump sum.
Before? It was "first serial rights" plus possible inclusion in an anthology -- two bites at the apple by the publisher.
When the trend first started, the authors were getting higher payments to cover the additional usage, so the publishers were indeed paying for the further use. What has happened in the last few years is that freelance pay rates have been frozen, and the number of products continues to increase. Indeed, many of the webzines I looked to write for continue to demand worldwide rights, and pay virtually nothing.
(I'm not really concerned for myself -- my articles tend to have a very limited lifetime, so I'm not hurt as badly as others.)
Now, when all the publishers are demanding the same rights, there is a view that this is a form of trust, and the Department of Justice doesn't like it. There have been efforts to get someone in the US Government interested in this issue, so as to prevent the publishers from applying anti-competitive pressure on freelance writers to accept this giving up of worldwide rights.
One thing that I do with these contracts: I make the assignment effective when I receive payment, not immediately. If a publisher is not willing to accept that condition, then I don't write for them. It helps, especially when they start putting my unpaid articles up in their databases. It makes for interesting copyright cease-and-desist actions...
I used that site everday for research purposes... to double check theorems and stuff... I was rather pissed off myself.
Humorless sig goes here.
Would this tie in with mathworld? The site had to be shut down because a clause in the contract somehow gave CRC press rights to the website and not just a current snapshot of the site. More information is available on the site, especially in the faq.
Humorless sig goes here.
From CNN story: They accused the media companies of copyright infringement by reproducing their work online without permission. Free-lancers are not employees of the publications, but sell their work to individual buyers.
/. too) way they please?!?! Comon! They are trying to apply RIAA arguments to everything sold these days. Pretty soon you are going to have legal speak on pencils, floor tile and bars of soap. I can see it now:
...
WTF? If you sell a product to someone, don't you think that they are going to use it any Gosh Darn (my grandmother reads
SUPPLEMENTAL END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR PROCTER & GAMBLE PRODUCTS
IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY - These Proctor & Gamble ("PG") product components, including any "sud-based" or "tissue-based", are subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement under which you have licensed the applicable Procter & Gamble product described below (each an "End User License Agreement" or "EULA") and the terms and conditions of this
Give me a break.
Blarf.
How often in history have we heard:
We have to have some practical way to allow X, even if this does trample some (people's) rights.
Replace X with many things -- the theft of land from indigenous peoples, or the killing of union workers, or the bombing of civilian populations, or whatever -- and you'll see what it means in reality.
In the view you espouse, you have no problem taking away someone else's rights, so long as you benefit in some way. You want to preserve old SF stories, so you are willing to "trample some of the authors (sic) rights?"
Ah, what a slippery slope you find yourself on -- for someday, someone is going to take away your rights, because doing so is good for them.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
All about me
I suggest that you read the Berne Copyright Convention, among other applicable laws, to understand that, indeed, authors do have property rights to their works.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
All about me
First, my personal take on the Supreme Court case:
I spent 12 years as a full-time writer, and I can't count the ways in which publishers ripped me off. Yes, I've had my work published on CD-ROM by publications who couldn't care less about the contracts they signed with me; no, it wasn't worth fighting about. Of course, the publishing industry has many problems, so I quit writing programming books and found other venues for my coding talents.
The U.S. legal system is managed by corporate-financed politicians for the benefit of (surprise, surprise!) the corporations. The problem isn't copyrights, or the DMCA, or any of these other laws and concepts that Slashdot readers focus on -- what's wrong with intellectual property is the way Corporations use it to rape the artists/writers and the public.
Hell, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Capitalist -- but that means I believe people should be compensated for what they do, not what they can steal. In today's environment, Corporations grow bigger (AOL-Time-Warner, anyone?), controlling more aspects of our lives, using their media to manipulate public opinion and their financial power to crush any opposition. An author like me can't afford to sue an international conglomerate over a violation of a contract or copyright -- and so the Corporation wins by default.
Copyright is not a "bad" thing; just like patents and other forms of intellectual property, the underlying principle is sound. The implementation of IP, however, has been seriously perverted. See, it isn't the writers, or the artists, or the musicians who are the problem with IP -- the evil lies in a culture of greedy megacorporations, who control content by stealing from both creators and consumers.
Publishing online would work fine and dandy if consumers actually *paid* for what they download -- but I know many an author who's traveled the "web publishing" road, only to end up broke at the end. Beyond the rare moral individual, most people will take what they can, while they can -- and then those same people moan and whine when corporations exhibit the same lack of ethics! Folks, what comes around goes around -- stealing an MP3 is no better than a Corporation stealing a writer's article. It's all part of the same stinky kettle of fish...
To end the corporate domination of media and knowledge, you need to support people who take an independent path. You get what you pay for, quite literally.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
All about me
Sincerely
grammar nazi
Keeping
In one of my classes, the class was divided up into groups. Each group is reponsible for taking a week's worth of notes and writing them up in a manner similar to a chapter of a book. The professor teaching the class intends to edit the submissions and string them together into a textbook. This textbook will be submitted to publishers for possible publication.
Now, no formal contract was signed between the professor and the students. As far as I know, no student will receive proceeds from the book, although the professor will. He does intend to credit all the original writers on a credits page.
Given that the work was done for a course that students *paid* to attend, is he allowed to simply take our work and walk away with it? There is no rights assignment policy at our University that I am aware of.
Like the CNN article says, this case comes out of Tasini v. NYT. Pretty much the same facts, and the court said that the NYT can't publish the articles in the database.
Why this case important: The court gets to decide the nature of the relationship between dead tree newspapers and digital versions of the same. We are all used to the non-linear nature of the web -- we search pages, "deep link" to sites' pages, etc. Same content, but vastly different way of getting to the content. For a simple example, is The New York Times the same as www.nyt.com? This is essentially the issue the court needs to determine.
The arguments, of course, stem from this issue. The most important thing to note is that neither party disputes that the freelance writers own the copyright to their works, and that the NYT owns the copyright to its collective work that is The New York Times (The NYT employees, of course, wrote their articles "work for hire" and thus don't own their copyright.) This is hugely important to understand.
Some of the legal background first: a collective work is a separately copyrightable creative work that collects copyrighted (or non-copyrighted) material. The copyright status of each work in a collective work remains the same. An owner of a copyright in a collective work has the right to make revisions and distribute new editions of the collective work without infringing on the copyrights of the individual works.
Now these are the arguments:
Tasini (freelance authors) argument -- We still own the copyrights to our works. You, NYT, can do anything you want with your newspaper, because you own the copyright to it, and have licensed our works for inclusion. But when you put them into a database, you create a NEW derivative work that requires you to come back to us and get a new license for the new collective work.
NYT argument -- We own the copyright to the collective work of the newspaper we put together. The database and website is simply a digital version of that collective work (along with some helpful search functions; aren't computers cool?). There's NO NEW work; the database/website is simply a revision of the collective work in which we own a copyright, and of course we have the right to make the revision without consulting or paying you, Tasini.
Hope this helps.
Huh? The only CCNV v. Reid case I could find affirms the legislated definition of "work made for hire". The only way an author "loses rights" based on that case is when so much editorial control is influenced as to make a case for joint authorship between the parties. It has nothing to do with the "work made for hire" definition.
I'm not sure how you get this reading. It doesn't "affirm" the definition of "work made for hire." It explains how to figure out what "work made for hire" means; specifically, how to interpret section 101's definition for "work made for hire" -- i.e., the court should look to the common law of agency to determine if there's an employer-employee relationship. Thus, it has *everything* to do with the work made for hire definition, because sometimes it's hard to say exactly when you have an employer-employee relationship. (If that's what you mean by "affirm", well, that's not how lawyers use the term.)
Also, your reading that "the only way an author 'loses rights' based on that case is when so much editorial control is influenced as to make a case for joint authorship between the parties" isn't entirely right. While that was a possibility in CCNV, the more important part of the case -- and the part that I was talking about -- is the explanation of "work made for hire," because if one uses agency common law to determine what work made for hire is, then you don't need contracts, etc. to fall under the definition. In CCNV, the court thought that CCNV might still be a co-author because they'd had a lot of say in the design; just not enough to be dispositive. This might be different in other cases where CCNV is just as applicable.
How quick the slashdot moderators are to mark "Informative" a misinformational post. If you simply read the US Copyright law definition of "work made for hire", you'll see that non-employee work only falls into this category "if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire."
Huh? The only CCNV v. Reid case I could find affirms the legislated definition of "work made for hire". The only way an author "loses rights" based on that case is when so much editorial control is influenced as to make a case for joint authorship between the parties. It has nothing to do with the "work made for hire" definition.
The free-lance writers only want more money for republishing their works, no matter what the content. Who can blame them? They see the RIAA complaining about mp3's and hearing about new CD's that don't allow copying. If you want another copy of that song you need to pay up!
The MPAA is harassing people over the DeCSS case, just because someone wanted to watch a DVD on their linux box. They don't want Europe to get a hold of a DVD before it is released now do they. Need to control those dollars!
Even the Book Publishers are screaming at Barnes and Noble and Amazon.com for selling used books. Why? Their not getting any extra royalties.
So why wouldn't the freelance writers be next?
Wouldn't you be a little upset? I would. The freelance writers aren't complaining about making a backup of the info (much like making a copy of your DVD or CD), That's not the issue here. The issue is having the freelance writer bullied into signing their life away. Simply put their being told to either sign this contract that is retroactive to all of your work or you can not work for us ever again. Oh, and by the way, we're going to reproduce your work for profit. That's right more profit that the freelance writer is not benefiting from. This isn't making a copy for the library or for personal use. This is a big bullying company trying to make more profit off of the individual.
Just because I get the paper at home doesn't mean I'm entitled to automatically get the online version too. I've got to pay for that also. Why shouldn't the freelancers get paid twice also?
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Artists are finally catching on. Pay to play is the future. Hollywood screenwriters are going on strike because they want to get paid for every DVD sold or any time a movie is played on cable. Now journalists are getting in on the action. Soon artists will start charging a per viewing fee to see their paintings. I wonder what will happen in 10 years when 100Mbps or higher speed lines in the home will be the norm?
I wrote a story for an online video-game web page and it got a lot of positive feedback. This same web page is loosely affiliated with a quite-large dead-tree video game review rag. The story I wrote for them I did as a volunteer but I told the editor that if my story ever sees action on a printing press I wanted something in return. I only asked for a coffee mug but the priniciple remains. I see my online article as a contribution to the community. If they turned around and printed it, they are making a tangible profit off my work and I'd want a piece of that action. Would I be legally entitled to anything? Probably not. But I think they would be morally responsible to repay me for my contribution.
BOSTON SUCKS!
Note: I have not been able to find any article by any major publisher that describes what the publishers are doing (distributing copyrighted works without permission, for money) as "piracy", please post a comment with a link if you know of one.
EVERYone knows consumers are the pirates, thieving from the honest, hardworking company presidents that need to put bread in their hungry children's mouths.
On a more serious note, I really doubt this to happen. Publishers, recording industry or no, seem to have gotten this notion that their customers are "the enemy", or out to despoil them or rip them off, so obviously they have to rip the customers off FIRST... to protect their profits. I will be quite surprised if any publishing group, no matter HOW small, describes themselves or for that matter any other publishing group as pirates. They seem to be presenting a unified front on this one.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Maybe what the recording industries and publishing industries fear so much is that the technology of the internet has made them obsolete. File sharing and cheap digital recording and publishing tools, like mod makers and players, means everyone can be his own musician, and there can be a true democracy of art appreciation - vote with your dollars, and the best artists will make the most money. This is probably scaring the marketing and advertising guys shitless.
/. crowd wants them to and "go with the flow" of modern technology, their jobs will vanish like smoke.
We no longer need middlemen. So why should they still be in jobs? They're fighting for their survival here. Now that I think of it, if they do what the
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Why are Diana Ross et al involved?
Gee, I'm really glad I only sell to small markets that only buy limited rights (FNASR, etc.). I don't think I would be able to take it if I had to sign away all the rights to all my writing forever just on the basis of one lousy payment.
If someone wants to make a movie or something out of one of my stories, they should have to talk to me and my lawyer, not to the publisher. Fair's fair, after all.
Selling ALL rights, and being coerced to sell ALL rights (and don't tell me "Sell us all the rights or you don't get published" isn't coercion) is nothing more than artistic prostitution and pimpery.
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
While there is a precedent issue to be established, I think that at this point any writer who does not establish how on-line versus print rights of anything they create is going to be dealt with, contractually and before the fact, is kinda getting what they deserve if they receive no compensation for an on-line version. This is not a new issue. This being said, there ARE two very big differences between an article being published in a magazine, and perhaps subsequently being archived at the library (microfiche or print storage/binding) and getting put on an on-line database. The first is the degree of access (the online form is hugely accessible by comparison) and the second is that this online content is creating a new revenue stream for the publisher. If that revenue was created after the fact of the purchase of the work for traditional print publication, then the creator can reasonably claim that the publisher illegally used their work in creating a new product, that they had the right to deny republication of their work (unless they signed away all rights to it) and should be able to seek additional compensation if they choose to allow republication. It is a different medium.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Marketplace is not distributed by National Public Radio (NPR). It is owned by Minnesota Public Radio and distributed by Public Radio International (PRI). PRI (disclosure: I am a PRI employee) raised initial money and continues to raise maintenance money for Marketplace (which just won a Peabody award, incidentally - http://www.peabody.uga.edu/news/pressreleases/pres srelease.asp?ID=56 ) and was heavily involved in its development, originally with KUSC, the original owners. NPR has never had anything to do with it.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Beyond that, to me, arguing the specifics of piracy is like arguing the specifics of the new "Earth's sky is purple" law. Earth's sky isn't purple, so I couldn't care less about specifics.
Robert Hutchinson
Robert Hutchinson
Smash it. Smash it good.
Magazines and newspapers are different in that generally their contracts gave them reprint rights without royalties owed to the authors (although the authors retained copyright), while with books there is a per-copy royalty. And it sounds like your standard contracts specify what you owe the authors for certain derivative works; the periodicals' contracts didn't cover anything they'd have to pay for later. (This is about freelancers who retain their copyright, not staff writers who generally came under "work for hire" rules and so never owned the copyrights.) As a book publisher, you have to keep track of authors or their agents and heirs as long as there is any chance of selling one more book -- you've got to know where to send the money. The periodicals probably deal with many more authors, pay them at time of publication, and have no reason to keep track of those who are no longer sending in publishable work. So if putting a periodical into an electronic database requires a new contract with all the authors, it's probably not going to happen -- they can't find all the authors, and probably couldn't afford the royalties demanded if they did find them.
Besides that, the publishers did NOT buy the articles originally. They just bought the right to print them, and to re-print without revisions. The authors still own the basic copyrights. The issue is, for contracts written before the publishers were aware of the possibilities on the internet, that the contracts don't define whether putting it on-line is "re-printing" or not.
all your articles are belong to us.
You can bet that this supreme court will side with corporate profits every time... with maybe 2 or 3 dissents.
Republicans are Nazis. LetsRiot!
Odd that there are no publishers publishing articles on publisher piracy...
This was asked for some time back on their web site and the publisher replied that it was almost impossible to do this. Every writer and illustrator would have to be contacted; after 20 -30 -70 years many are dead or impossible to find any more. Even if you could find them the cost and time of arranging all the rights and paying them and arguing with their agents and so one is too high.
And then I suppose there would be gaps where the writer refused to let his article be published again.
And then what would you pay for this CD collection? Like National Geographic, probably no more than $100.
You see the problem?? If we are fair to the writers and their estates then things become so tangled in a mass of rights and payments and documentation that I will never see my CD of Analog.
And if I have to wait until 50 years after they are all dead - for copyright to expire - does this mean that you have to track the age of every writer or wait for 150 years after publication to be sure they are dead?
How long will all these Analogs - decaying swiftly on old sulphite pulp - survive? Is the legacy of copyright that it is too complicated to preserve the past, that we must let everything rot away and be forgotten?
We have to have some practical way to allow magazine articles to be displayed on the internet, even if this does trample some of the authors rights.
The courts had better rule in favor of the Freelance writes given the recent rulings in favor of intellectual property. Otherwise we will know that the government has completely been bought by corporations and we the little persons are just plain screwed.
Capitalism: unequal distribution of wealth
Socialism: equal distribution of poverty
New AOL 6.5 download now.
Be sure and read the addition to the terms of service
America Online, (AOLTime-Warner), retains all rights to anything and everything, real or imagined, that any AOL user creates, invents, or otherwise is involved in. By agreeing to the above terms you also agree that this contract is binding until death.
Click here to get your 3000 free hours