The US Supreme Court has agreed to review a case brought by
freelance writers who are claiming that The New York Times, Time
and other publications breached their copyrights by putting their
articles in electronic databases.
Six freelance writers brought the original case, arguing that
they are entitled to part of the fees that the publishers charge
consumers for downloading their articles. The writers are
complaining that where web sites pay publishers for material and
then offer it for downloading upon payment by site visitors, the
writers should receive a royalty. They say that offering their work
in this way amounts to copyright infringement because they never
signed away the rights in their work.
The publishers are appealing an appeals court case that says
they must compensate the freelancers unless they have express
permission to use the work in the databases. The companies will
argue before the Supreme Court that if the freelancers have their
way, they would be forced to remove tens of thousands of freelance
articles from their databases and CD-ROMs. They argue that the
appeals court’s decision “threatens to degrade this valuable public
resource immediately and severely.”
The publishers are seeking to rely on a provision of US
copyright law that lets a newspaper or magazine republish an
article if it is a “revision” of the original publication. They
argue that electronic versions should be considered such
revisions.
The writers in the present case are arguing over rights to
articles written between 1990 and 1993. The standard practice today
for publishers entering into contracts with freelancers is to
require the writer to give the publisher the rights to both print
editions and electronic versions of the works.
