RE: What does Tasini mean for us librarians?

["Erwin, Patricia J." <erwin.patricia@mayo.edu>]

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
erwin.patricia@mayo.edu
Mayo Medical Library
Rochester MN 55905
Phone: 507-284-4952
FAX: 507-284-2215


-----Original Message-----
From: Sloan, Bernie [mailto:bernies@uillinois.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 3:29 PM
To: 'liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu'; consort@ohiolink.edu
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:aokerson@pantheon.yale.edu]
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 1999 10:49 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu; consort@ohiolink.edu
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