Re: Ruling on Tasini Case

["David Mirchin" <DMirchin@Silverplatter.com>]

Michael,

Yes, you are completely right.  The issue is whether the author has
transferred all the rights of copyright (like redistribution, adaptations,
etc.), or just some of the rights (such as the right to include in one
print journal.)

David

Michael Spinella wrote:

> Not being a lawyer, I could, of course, be mistaken, but I believe the
> issue is not whether the author sold their work to the publication or gave
> it freely. The real distinction should be whether the author transferred
> copyright to the publisher or not. Copyright can be transferred with or
> without the exchange of money; and fees may be paid with or without the
> transfer of copyright.
>
> I believe the Tasini case is solely related to those cases where the
> author has retained copyright. If the publishers had obtained the
> copyright, there would be no case, because the copyright holder has all
> the rights to disseminate the work, repurpose it, whatever, in any form
> they wish. If the author retains copyright (which is often the case with
> freelancers and seldom the case with scholars submitting to journals),
> then the publisher  must go back to the author for permission to issue the
> work in a new form or new medium. The original publication in print would
> have been covered by whatever license or rights were obtained when the
> article was first published. But the Court has now clarified that online
> publication rights do not automatically transfer along with print rights.
>
> Mike Spinella
>
> ___________
>
> >>> jad@maties.sun.ac.za 06/26/01 05:16PM >>>
> Hello,
>
> A cursory reading of the NY Times article posted earlier to this list
> suggests that only freelancers that _sell_ their works to publishers are
> affected by this ruling. "...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."
>
> Scholars, who tend to not receive remuneration for journal articles
> submitted, are by that act entering into a different type of contract. I
> imagine one would need to read the exact wording of the court ruling e.g.
> their definition of 'freelancer' or 'regular newspaper or magazine' to
> clarify matters. But my guess is that the ruling would not extend to
> scholars, authors of monographs, and such. What makes the matter "major
> news" would be that it sets a precedent for others to argue their
> respective cases.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jennifer De Beer