[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Fwd: Re: FW: Supreme Court Rules on Tasini vs. New York Times

• To: Multiple recipients of list <epc-l@iucr.org>
• Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: Supreme Court Rules on Tasini vs. New York Times
• From: Howard Flack <Howard.Flack@cryst.unige.ch>
• Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:34:56 +0100 (BST)

----- Forwarded message from Eamon Fennessy <efennessy@ATT.NET> -----
    Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:53:37 +0000
    From: Eamon Fennessy <efennessy@ATT.NET>
Reply-To: ICSTI-L list <ICSTI-L@DTIC.MIL>
 Subject: Re: FW: Supreme Court Rules on Tasini vs. New York Times
      To: ICSTI-L@DTIC.MIL

The Supreme Court decision simply confirms what the law
has said for the past several decades.
    1. Anyone who is using someone else's intellectual
property online or wherever had best get permission.
    2. Publishers like the NY Times will start removing
old articles from online databases for which no
permission has been obtained.
    3. Some publishers have been obtaining permissions
since the mid 1990's as this case which I believe
started in 1993 was wending its way through the courts.
    4. The decision confirms you cannot take anything
for granted and for those clearing houses which offer
licenses to users for works which are to be put online
had best be sure they (the clearinghouses) have the
rights to offer online use to their clients. They (the
clearinghouses) cannot assume publishers have the rights
which they are conferring on those clearinghouses.

Eamon T. Fennessy
The Copyright Group
P.O. Box 5496
Beverly Farms, MA 01915

Phone & FAX (978) 927 9936
> FYI,
>
> Kurt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gail Hodge [mailto:Gailhodge@AOL.COM]
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 3:35 PM
> To: CENDI-PA@DTIC.MIL
> Subject: FYI:Supreme Court Rules on Tasini vs. New York Times
>
>
> In a ruling that is likely to have a major impact on authors,
publishers,
> and
> secondary database producers, the Supreme Court has ruled on the case
of
> Tasini vs. New York Times.
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/25/scotus.copyright.ap/index.html
>
> From the CNN article:
>
>  "The court ruled 7-2 that compilation in an electronic
> database is different from other kinds of archival or library storage
of
> material that once appeared in print. That means that copyright laws
require
> big media companies such as The New York Times to get free-lancers'
> permission before posting their work online."
>
> The decision itself is likely to be available online soon.  While the
> article
> signals out big media companies and free lancers, this is expected to
have
> an
> impact on author/publisher relations in general.  It should be noted
that
> many publishers have already gone to so called "Martian" permissions
where
> they ask for copyright transfer everywhere, anytime, and in any media.
 It
> isn't clear what the impact might be on permissions done under the
old
> regime
> before permission and copyright transfer agreements included
electronic
> versions.  Some anticipate that rather than try to get permissions
from
> authors of old material, publishers may just remove that material
from
> electronic databases.
>
> Gail

----- End forwarded message -----



-- 
Currently out of town
Howard Flack        http://www.unige.ch/crystal/ahdf/Howard.Flack.html
Laboratoire de Cristallographie               Phone: +41 22 702 62 49
24 quai Ernest-Ansermet             mailto:Howard.Flack@cryst.unige.ch
CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland                   Fax: +41 22 702 61 08

Reply to: [list | sender only]

• Prev by Date: Re: Publication policy/archiving policy
• Next by Date: For your information: [FWD: Entire French web to be archived]
• Prev by thread: For your information: [FWD: Entire French web to be archived]
• Next by thread: Re: Publication policy/archiving policy
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread