15.117 e-publishing issues

From: by way of Willard McCarty (willard@lists.village.Virginia.EDU)
Date: Wed Jun 27 2001 - 03:03:32 EDT

  • Next message: by way of Willard McCarty: "15.118 library-created or library-related Knowledge Bases?"

                   Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 15, No. 117.
           Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London

       [1] From: david@ninch.org (99)
             Subject: Publishers Must Seek Authors' Permission for
                     Electronic Reprints, Supreme Court Rules

       [2] From: NINCH-ANNOUNCE <david@ninch.org> (146)
             Subject: Supreme Court Rules 7-2 for Writers Union in NYT v

       [3] From: NINCH-ANNOUNCE <david@ninch.org> (14)
             Subject: Details on Mellon's E-Journal Archiving Program

             Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 07:52:37 +0100
             From: david@ninch.org
             Subject: Publishers Must Seek Authors' Permission for Electronic
    Reprints, Supreme Court Rules

    This article from The Chronicle of Higher Education
    (http://chronicle.com) was forwarded to you from: david@ninch.org

        Tuesday, June 26, 2001

        Publishers Must Seek Authors' Permission for Electronic
        Reprints, Supreme Court Rules


        In a decision supported by academic-library groups and some
        scholars, the Supreme Court ruled overwhelmingly on Monday
        that media companies may not republish freelance writers'
        works in electronic form without their prior approval.

        At issue in the case, The New York Times Company v. Jonathan
        Tasini, was whether copyright law allows publishers to
        transfer authors' works into databases and onto CD-ROM's
        without providing them additional compensation. The court's
        decision was signed by seven of the nine justices.

        Major publishers, such as the New York Times Company, the
        Washington Post Company, and Reed Elsevier Inc., which owns
        Lexis-Nexis, argued that articles republished electronically
        were merely "revisions" of the original publications and thus
        allowable reprints under copyright law. They also said that a
        ruling in the authors' favor would require deleting freelance
        articles from online databases and CD-ROM's.

        But Jonathan Tasini, president of the National Writers' Union
        and the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against The New York
        Times, argued that online versions of articles are entirely
        new editions that require writers' prior approval.

        The case not only pitted freelance writers against publishers.
        It set scholars against scholars and academic libraries
        against publishers.

        Mr. Tasini drew support from the Association of Research
        Libraries, the American Library Association, and the National
        Humanities Association. Those groups said that freelance
        articles, even if they were excluded from CD-ROM's and
        databases, would still be available in printed versions and
        microform copies. They said publishers had exaggerated the
        extent to which electronic databases had replaced the physical

        "It's important to note that this decision recognizes that the
        true historical record remains available through libraries and
        archives," said Prudence S. Adler, assistant executive
        director of the Association of Research Libraries.

        Added Peter A. Jaszi, a law professor at American University:
        "This decision seems to be a wonderful reaffirmation of the
        central importance of the creative individual in our copyright
        system." Mr. Jaszi helped the library groups prepare their
        brief for the Supreme Court.

        He said the case was also significant because it marked the
        first time the court had ruled on the issue of how copyright
        law should be applied to digital technology. The court is
        expected to confront other related issues involving the
        copying of digital music and video.

        Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said
        that print publishers and electronic publishers infringed on
        the copyrights of the freelance authors whose works were
        disseminated online. Their articles, she wrote, are not
        reproductions of the originally published articles "because
        the databases reproduce and distribute articles standing
        alone" and not as part of a "collective work."

        Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the dissent and was
        joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, agreed with the
        publishers that electronic reprints of the freelance writers'
        works are simply revisions of their original writings.

        The court left it up to the U.S. District Court for the
        Southern District of New York to decide the appropriate remedy
        for the authors whose copyrights were infringed. In 1997, that
        court sided with the publishers, but the decision was reversed
        in 1999 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

        The Supreme Court did not express a preference for how authors
        should be compensated in the future. The library groups favor
        a collective-licensing system for writers' works, modeled on a
        system used by the music industry. Under that proposal,
        publishers would set up a fund to pay freelance writers each
        time their works were reprinted electronically. The Supreme
        Court's majority opinion singled out that proposal for mention
        as one method for compensating writers.

        The ruling was a blow to some well-known historians who had
        filed a brief in support of the publishers. Ken Burns, Doris
        Kearns Goodwin, David M. Kennedy, David McCullough, Jack N.
        Rakove, and Gordon S. Wood argued that the possibility of
        erasing articles from electronic databases would harm
        scholarly research.

        Another group of historians disagreed and filed a brief in
        support of Mr. Tasini. They said professional historians rely
        more on primary sources -- such as diaries, letters, and
        memoirs -- than on newspapers and magazines. That brief was
        filed by Ellen Schrecker of Yeshiva University and Stanley N.
        Katz of Princeton University, among others.


    Chronicle subscribers can read this article on the Web at this address:

    If you would like to have complete access to The Chronicle's Web
    site, a special subscription offer can be found at:



    You may visit The Chronicle as follows:

         * via the World-Wide Web, at http://chronicle.com
         * via telnet at chronicle.com

    Copyright 2001 by The Chronicle of Higher Education

             Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 07:53:13 +0100
             From: NINCH-ANNOUNCE <david@ninch.org>
             Subject: Supreme Court Rules 7-2 for Writers Union in NYT v Tasini

    News on Networking Cultural Heritage Resources
    from across the Community

                       Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Writers Union

               High Court Sides With Freelance Writers in Electronic Rights Case
                                   New York Times article:

    >From: "Jonathan Tasini" <jt@pipeline.com>
    >To: "Jonathan Tasini" <jt@pipeline.com>
    >>Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:16:48 -0400
    >Organization: National Writers Union

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Jonathan Tasini
                                                                    Lindsay Barenz

    National Writers Union and UAW hail Supreme Court ruling as victory for
    creators and consumers

    Leaders of the National Writers Union and the International Union, UAW
    described today's Supreme Court ruling-which upholds copyright protections
    for free-lance writers-as a victory for creators and consumers. Union
    leaders also offered to begin negotiations immediately with the publishing
    industry to resolve billions of dollars in potential liabilities created by
    repeat violations of U.S. copyright law.

    "The Court has upheld the spirit of the Constitutional protection for
    copyright, which was written for the benefit of individual authors," said
    Jonathan Tasini, president of the National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981)
    and the lead plaintiff in Tasini vs. New York Times. "Now, it's time for
    the media industry to pay creators their fair share and let's sit down
    and negotiate over this today."

    By a 7-2 majority, the Court upheld a September 1999 unanimous ruling by the
    U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, which found that The New York Times and
    publishers had committed copyright infringement when they resold freelance
    newspaper and magazine articles, via electronic databases such as
    LexisNexis, without asking permission or making additional payments to the
    original authors.

    "We're proud to have supported our members in the National Writers Union in
    their fight to be treated fairly by the publishing industry," said UAW
    President Stephen P. Yokich. "Today's decision paves the way for writers
    and other creators to be fairly compensated for their work. That's good
    news all of us, because we all benefit when the legal protections of
    copyright encourage the creation of new art, science, and literature."

    The International Union, UAW, has provided legal and financial support for
    the groundbreaking litigation, which was filed by nine free-lance members of
    UAW Local 1981, the National Writers Union, in 1993

    "Our message to the publishing industry now is: let's negotiate," said UAW
    Vice President Elizabeth Bunn, who directs the union's Technical, Office and
    Professional Department. "The New York Times and other publishers face
    billions of dollars of potential liability for selling articles to which
    they hold no copyright. The way to settle these obligations is to meet at
    the bargaining table, so we can find solutions that are fair to writers, to
    the industry, and for consumers."

    The NWU, Tasini said, is already party to a class action lawsuit, which will
    enforce the copyright protections affirmed today by the Supreme Court.

    "We want to settle past claims in a reasonable fashion, and establish a
    mechanism so that free-lancers can be compensated fairly from now on," said
    Tasini. The Publication Rights Clearinghouse (PRC), said Tasini,
    established by the NWU in 1993, offers a way for writers and publisher to
    track the ownership of copyright, and payment for authorized re-sale of
    copyrighted works. Free-lance writers, whether or not they are NWU
    members, can use the PRC to license their works by visiting www.nwu.org.

    Further details regarding the Tasini vs. New York Times litigation can be
    found at: www.nwu.org/tvt/vichome.htm

    The National Writers Union has 7,000 members nationwide, including
    journalists, book authors, technical writers and poets. It is the only union
    dedicated solely to advancing the interests of freelance writers.

    The International Union, UAW has more than 1.3 million active and retired
    members, including more than 100,00 members in its Technical, Office and
    Professional Department. In addition to free-lance writers, the UAW also
    represents attorneys, clerical workers, educators, firefighters, graphic
    designers, health care workers, librarians, museum workers, public
    employees, and many others.


    >Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:11:24 -0400 (EDT)
    >From: Ann Okerson <ann.okerson@yale.edu>
    >To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
    >cc: Scott Bennett <Scott.Bennett@yale.edu>,
    >Subject: NYTimes.com Article: High Court Sides With Freelance Writers in
    > Electronic Rights Case
    >Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
    >Major news for all of us. Ann Okerson

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------

    Supremes decide Tasini in favor of writers
    High Court Sides With Freelance Writers in Electronic Rights Case


    Filed at 10:57 a.m. ET

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Ruling against big media companies in an information
    age dispute Monday, the Supreme Court said free-lance writers may control
    whether articles they sold for print in a regular newspaper or magazine
    may be reproduced in electronic form.

    The court ruled 7-2 that compilation in an electronic database is
    different from other kinds of archival or library storage of material that
    once appeared in print. That means that copyright laws require big media
    companies such as The New York Times to get free-lancers' permission
    before posting their work online.

    Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens dissented.

    At issue was how to treat copyright works when technological advances
    changed the way information would be available in ways neither the writer
    nor the publication foresaw.

    Although seemingly esoteric, the copyright fight goes to the heart of the
    Internet's basic appeal to researchers and casual users -- how much
    information is available at the click of a computer mouse.

    Large publishers argued that if they lost, they would probably remove a
    lot of material from electronic view rather than fight with writers over
    permission and fees.

    The case turned on whether electronic reproduction of a newspaper or
    periodical constitutes a revision of the original print edition. Under
    copyright law, publishers do not need authors' permission to produce a
    revised version of the original edition.

    The case largely affects articles, photographs and illustrations produced
    a decade or so ago -- before free-lance contracts provided for the
    material's electronic use.

    Six free-lance writers sued The New York Times, Newsday, Time Inc. and
    other publishers over inclusion of their work in electronic databases.
    Some databases require the user to pay a fee, such as LEXIS/NEXIS, while
    others are available free over the Internet.

    A federal judge first ruled for the publishers, throwing out the writers'
    suit on grounds that electronic databases are revisions under the
    copyright law.

    The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York reversed in 1999,
    finding that copyright law required publishers to seek authors'

    The case is New York Times v. Tasini, 00-201.



    Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the most authoritative news
    coverage on the Web, updated throughout the day.

    Become a member today! It's free!



    For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help@nytimes.com.
    Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company


    ============================================================== NINCH-Announce is an announcement listserv, produced by the National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage (NINCH). The subjects of announcements are not the projects of NINCH, unless otherwise noted; neither does NINCH necessarily endorse the subjects of announcements. We attempt to credit all re-distributed news and announcements and appreciate reciprocal credit.

    For questions, comments or requests to un-subscribe, contact the editor: <mailto:david@ninch.org> ============================================================== See and search back issues of NINCH-ANNOUNCE at <http://www.cni.org/Hforums/ninch-announce/>. ==============================================================

    --[3]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 07:55:16 +0100 From: NINCH-ANNOUNCE <david@ninch.org> Subject: Details on Mellon's E-Journal Archiving Program

    NINCH ANNOUNCEMENT News on Networking Cultural Heritage Resources from across the Community June 26, 2001

    Andrew W. Mellon Foundation's E-Journal Archiving Program http://www.diglib.org/preserve/ejp.htm

    Information is now available on the web page of the Digital Library Federation of an E-Journal Archiving Program, funded by the Mellon Foundation, examining a variety of strategies for ensuring the preservation of electronic journals. The web page details the project, links to some key papers presented at an organizational meeting and to five projects that have received Mellon funding.

    David Green ============

    [material deleted]

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jun 27 2001 - 03:17:06 EDT