Writers' rights affirmed by Supreme Court
Now, the battle to win compensation
By Susan E.
Davis
Co-Chair UAW Local 1981
New York
The Supreme Court affirmed in a 7-2 decision on June 25
that the New York Times, Time Inc., Newsday and two databases
infringed the copyrights of freelance writers by putting
their articles online without permission or additional
payment.
Six freelance writers had initiated a suit against the
publishers in 1993, spearheaded by the National Writers Union
(NWU), UAW Local 1981, when they discovered their articles
could be purchased online. The publishers contended they had
the right to use the articles that way as part of their
"collective work."
The crux of the issue was compensation. The for-profit
publishers sold the writers' work to the databases, and the
profit-making databases sold the writers' work to
subscribers. But writers were not paid for those sales.
The infringing publishers may now be forced to pay
substantial damages to freelance writers. For instance, the
Times has estimated that during the period in question--1980
to 1995--up to 27,000 freelance writers wrote approximately
115,000 articles. Writers have already filed three
class-action lawsuits for damages against electronic
databases.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg noted in her decision that the
publishers could "draw on numerous models for distributing
copyrighted words and remunerating authors for their
distribution." In fact the NWU set up the Publication Rights
Clearinghouse (PRC) in 1994 to track the ownership of
copyright, usage of work and payment for the authorized
resale of copyrighted works. The PRC functions like ASCAP,
which collects royalties for the music industry.
"Now it's time for the media industry to negotiate to pay
creators their fair share," said Jonathan Tasini, president
of the NWU and lead plaintiff in Tasini v. Times, in a June
25 press release.
But instead of sitting down at the negotiating table, the
Times has opted to delete freelancers' work from its
databases. If freelancers don't want their work deleted, the
Times says they should sign a retroactive all-rights contract
with no money and no right to collect damages.
Campaign for compensation
The NWU has launched a campaign to expose the Times'
hypocrisy and pressure it to negotiate. On June 26 NWU
members and others began calling the Times to protest the
company's ultimatum. On July 6 Tasini announced the NWU was
bringing another suit against the Times because its action
"violates the spirit of the Supreme Court decision."
A joint NWU-UAW ad appeared in the July 9 Times. It read
in part: "There's no reason for any writer to give in to the
one-sided demands made by publishers ... publishers should
stop trying to bully us, and start bargaining."
The NWU has called a rally from noon to 1 p.m. in front of
the Times on July 19 to "defend the rights of working
writers" and "tell the Times that their theft and coercion
must stop." The rally has been endorsed by the New York
Central Labor Council and other writers' organizations. For
more information about the struggle, visit the NWU's Web site
at www.nwu.org.
"Intellectual property rights is a current buzz word,"
noted Dian Killian, NWU's Journalism Organizer. "The New York
Times was opposed to Napster ripping off musicians, but when
it comes to writers' rights, the Times has exposed that its
only interest is in its bottom line. The union knew the
Supreme Court victory was just the beginning. Writers are
workers. We have to show that the writers and the readers of
the Times will not tolerate such treatment of workers."
This article is copyright under a Creative
Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
HOME
:: U.S. NEWS ::
WORLD NEWS ::
EDITORIALS
:: SUBSCRIBE ::
DONATE
Email
this article
Printable
page