[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: What does Tasini mean for us librarians?
- To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: What does Tasini mean for us librarians?
- From: "Erwin, Patricia J." <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 18:28:26 EDT
- Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
My $.02 worth -- It may not have as wide an application as it would seem at first read. Newspaper publishers or trade press publishers who employ writers, in most cases have copyright. Similar to my inventing something while employed -- the patent would be property of my employer. Now, in the area of freelancers, this could get to be murkier. I would guess it would depend on the contract, and whether full copyright was signed over -- as is often the case in STM, or whether only limited license was given. Patricia Erwin firstname.lastname@example.org Mayo Medical Library Rochester MN 55905 Phone: 507-284-4952 FAX: 507-284-2215 -----Original Message----- From: Sloan, Bernie [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 3:29 PM To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'; email@example.com Subject: RE: What does Tasini mean for us librarians? For those of you interested in reading the decision itself, there's a copy posted at: http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/September99/97-9181.html -----Original Message----- From: Ann Okerson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Sunday, October 24, 1999 10:49 PM To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: Scott Bennett Subject: What does Tasini mean for us librarians? Finally I got around to reading the Second Circuit decision of "Tasini vs. New York Times," handed down on September 24th, 1999. This decision has been the subject of much discussion on the cni-copyright list, but not yet on liblicense-l. But, shouldn't it be? In this recent ruling, an overturn of the decision of the lower court, the judges gave to writers, at least freelance writers whose material is republished in an electronic aggregation-database, a major victory. That is, the judges ruled that a publisher who wishes to grant rights to an aggregator to include works in that aggregators database, may not automatically do so. The publisher must have the author's permission. The publisher is *not* protected by the privilege against copyright infringement afforded to publishers of collective works. This very readable decision describes the process by which a periodical or newspaper is made available to NEXIS and how an article loses any sense of its original context in the subsequent aggregated database publication. My reading of the decision, hardly an authoritative reading of course, says to me that the aggregations that my library colleagues and I license (collections like Lexis-Nexis, Academic Universe, ProQuestDirect, Ebsco Academic and others) are likely to contain numerous articles whose authors have not, therefore, given permission for inclusion in such collections. This in turn suggests to me that suddenly those aggregators may have discovered that they did not have the right to further license those aggregations to customers such as my library. So, now what? Any experts out there? Ann Okerson Yale University Library Ann.Okerson@yale.edu