Supreme Court to Hear Online Reprint Case 8
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.
Happened in The Netherlands too. (Score:1)
Any past caselaw that applies? (Score:1)
Whoops. Broken link to the case (Score:1)
Ed
How does this really hurt the authors? (Score:1)
Today was just a day fading into another-Counting Crows
Re:How does this really hurt the authors? (Score:2)
Better Tasini links (Score:2)
I found a good article about Tasini [gigalaw.com] at Gigalaw. The article discusses litigation concerning the switch from movies to videos.
EdBackground info on NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. TASINI (Score:2)
Be sure to read more coverage from the [washingtonpost.com]Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] and the 2nd -Circuit decision [findlaw.com] 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 [findlaw.com] (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.
Re:Any past caselaw that applies? (Score:3)
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.