Re: Ruling on Tasini Case

["Mastin Mount & Carol Richman" <mmmount@earthlink.net>]

I agree with David and Mike with one minor point:  copyright transfer
agreements are all different; one must be careful to include language that
covers all rights and all mediums in order to reuse a work.

Carol Richman

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Mirchin" <DMirchin@Silverplatter.com>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Ruling on Tasini Case


> 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
>