New York Times Co. v. Tasini

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New York Times Co. v. Tasini
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued March 28, 2001
Decided June 25, 2001
Full case name The New York Times Company, Inc., et al., Petitioners
v.
Jonathan Tasini, et al.
Citations 533 U.S. 483 (more)
121 S. Ct. 2381
Holding
Section 201(c) does not authorize the copying at issue here. The Publishers are not sheltered by §201(c) because the Databases reproduce and distribute articles standing alone and not in context, not "as part of that particular collective work" to which the author contributed, "as part of … any revision" thereof, or "as part of … any later collective work in the same series."
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Ginsburg, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas
Dissent Stevens, joined by Breyer

New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001), is a leading decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of copyright in the contents of a newspaper database. It held that The New York Times, in licensing back issues of the newspaper for inclusion in electronic databases such as LexisNexis, could not license the works of free-lance journalists contained in the newspapers.

The lawsuit brought by members of the UAW's National Writers Union against the New York Times Company, Newsday Inc., Time Inc., University Microfilms International, and LexisNexis. The freelance writers charged copyright infringement due to the use and reuse in electronic media of articles initially licensed to be published in print form. In a 7-2 ruling delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court affirmed the copyright privileges of freelance writers whose works were originally published in periodicals and then provided by the publishers to electronic databases without explicit permission of, or compensation to, the writers. As a result of the decision, plaintiffs won a compensation pool of $18 million.

History[edit]

The case was initially heard in the district court of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who held that the publishers were within their rights according to the Copyright Act of 1976. This decision was reversed on appeal, and the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's reversal.[1]

See also[edit]

Notes and references[edit]

  1. ^ Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases, CNN.com, 26 May 2009. Accessed 26 May 2009.

Further reading[edit]

  • Chen, Xiaotian (2002). "Embargo, Tasini, and ‘Opted Out’: How Many Journal Articles Are Missing from Full-Text Databases". Internet Reference Services Quarterly 7 (4): 23–34. doi:10.1300/J136v07n04_03. 
  • Freeman, Edward H. (2001). "Electronic reprints of freelance works: New York times v. Tasini". Publishing Research Quarterly 17 (3): 50–55. doi:10.1007/s12109-001-0033-0. 
  • Parisi, Francesco; Ševčenko, Catherine (2001). "Lessons from the Anticommons: The Economics of New York Times Co. v. Tasini". Kentucky Law Journal 90 (2): 295. 
  • Smith, Frank H. (1998). "Tasini v. New York Times Co.: A Copyright, or a Right to Copy?". New England Law Review 32 (4): 1093–1130. 

External links[edit]