|
INK BLOTS
by ED McGEEAN
New Direction for New Yorker
In an Aug. 23rd story Editor & Publisher's David Noack reported that
a New York federal judge has dealt freelance writers fighting to control
their copyrights in the electronic media a major setback.
The judge ruled that publishers can distribute freelance
works on CD-ROMs and commercial databases without obtaining the writer's
approval or paying additional fees.
The decision dismisses a federal copyright infringement
suit four years ago by a group of writers against the New York Times, Newsday,
Sports Illustrated, Lexis/Nexis and UMI Co. The suit challenged the publishers'
right to purchase freelance articles for print and then reuse the work for
electronic services without payment of additional fees.
In a 56-page decision, U.S. District Judge Sonia Sotomayor
held that companies did not infringe the copyrights of freelance writers
under the federal Copyright Act. Freelance stories appearing in electronic
databases and CD-ROMs of print publications are revisions, not new on-line
products or services, she said.
Because the case was filed before the Internet emerged
as a populist publishing medium, neither the suit nor the ruling specifically
addressed electronic publishing rights in cyberspace. The exact implications
of the narrow ruling on World Wide Web publishing is not clear.
The National Writers Union policy calls for writers to
get a minimum 15% premium over their original fee for first North American
print rights to compensate for using a work in one electronic outlet for
up to one year--plus additional annual licensing fees for electronic uses
of the original work.
(With writers for national or widely distributed local
publications receiving $1 and up per word, these extra fees are worth fighting
for. Cartoonists and their lawyers should also keep this in mind when negotiating
contracts or sales.
Remember the famous Peggy Lee suit against Disney for distributing
her work on "Lady and the Tramp" on video tapes without additional
payments?
As I recall, Ms. Lee won the case because she or her lawyer
were smart enough to include wording that called for additional payment
for future reproduction rights and approval for mediums other than the original
movie and phonograph recordings in use at that time.)
©Ed McGeehan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. | 
