Talk:New York Times Co. v. Tasini

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why no link?:[edit]

Why no link?:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Tasini >.

Hopiakuta 15:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's easier to add a link like that by typing [[Jonathan Tasini]] (which shows up as Jonathan Tasini) --Tim4christ17 15:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you want to add a link to Tasini (assuming he's the one with the case, I'm afraid I don't know anything about the case), be BOLD and go ahead! --Tim4christ17 15:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

< http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=NYT&script=411&item_id=185834&layout=23 >:

a simpler page f/ New York Times' statement.

Hopiakuta 15:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Title Correct?[edit]

Is the title of this article correct? It seems to me that, if the writers sued the NYT, the case should have been called Tasini v. New York Times Co. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelMunoz (talk • contribs) 16:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the references, and it's sometimes called Times v. Tasina and sometimes called Tasini v. Times. Does anybody know if both are correct? I thought the plaintiff always comes first, but I don't know much about law. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The official name of the case as reported in all the relevant journals, etc. is as given in the title of this article; but folks do refer to it as Tasini vs. Times sometimes; I'll create a redir, if there isn't one already. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is four years later, but it should be noted that the title is correct because the case reached the Supreme Court on The New York Times Co.'s appeal of the circuit court's decision. So they were the petitioner to the Supreme Court. It would have been "Tasini v. New York Times Co." in the original district court suit, which was decided in the Times Co.'s favor, and then again on the first appeal by Tasini, where the circuit court reversed the original decision. The Times Co. Was the one seeking to reverse that decision (and thereby restore the original decision) so they go first in the Supreme Court case. oknazevad (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What did their contracts say?[edit]

So, the issue seems to be whether or not the newspaper companies can resell/license work that other people (non-employees) made and contributed to the newspaper. Wouldn't the contract between the third-party writers and the company specify exactly what rights were being granted? As in either a limited authority to publish the work in the newspaper, or full ownership including the right to resell/license? It might be interesting if the article discussed that background. Jason McHuff (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greenberg v. National Geographic shows that things after this case are somewhat muddled as the appeals seem to go in the opposite direction.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some Proposed Changes[edit]

Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page. I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.

Add to Aftermath section: The decision involved works generated by 27,000 authors, but it did not allocate any bargaining power to them. Hence, the case is largely viewed as a moral victory, rather than one that provides increased financial opportunities for freelancers.[1] The New York Times Company responded to the decision by drafting an ultimatum for the authors. The authors could contact the Times and request that it continue to distribute their works online, but only on the conditions that the authors ask for no additional payment and that they release the Tasini decision's legal claim on the Times and the database licensees. Future freelance contracts with the New York Times included similar terms that allowed the Times to exploit the works in whatever ways the future may reveal.[2] Since the case, there have been multiple policy proposals for improving the bargaining power of freelancers, many of which have their own pros and cons.[2] The Authors Guild and National Writers Union have also attempted to improve the bargaining power available to freelancers by creating collective rights organizations for the administration of licensing re-use rights.[3] Cf2022 (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Cf2022[reply]

References

  1. ^ O'Rourke, Maureen (2003). "Bargaining in the Shadow of Copyright Law after Tasini". Case Western Reserve Law Review. 53: 605–602.
  2. ^ O'Rourke, Maureen (2003). "Bargaining in the Shadow of Copyright Law after Tasini". Case Western Reserve Law Review. 53: 605–602.
  3. ^ O'Rourke, Maureen (2003). "Bargaining in the Shadow of Copyright Law after Tasini". Case Western Reserve Law Review. 53: 605–602.
I see no COI concerns here. This subject of this article is not related to you or your employer, thus I see no reason why you cannot proceed with implementing your changes. Remember, you are very strongly encouraged to edit via edit requests only in regards to topics relating to your employer or or other topics where you may have a conflict of interests, broadly construed. Directly editing non-COI topics is fine. Melmann 22:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_Times_Co._v._Tasini&oldid=1207186791"