[Journalists] Appeals Court Voids Agreement to Pay Freelancers for Work Published on the Web

[Everett Gavel]

Appeals Court Voids Agreement to Pay Freelancers for 
Work Published on the Web
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: November 30, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/business/media/30copyright.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


A federal appeals court yesterday threw out a 
hard-fought agreement between publishers and freelance 
writers to pay the writers for electronic reproduction 
of their work.

In a 2-to-1 decision, an appellate panel ruled that the 
courts had no jurisdiction over the copyright dispute 
and that a lower court erred in accepting the writers' 
lawsuit and approving the settlement.

People on both sides of the dispute said it was unclear 
what would happen next -- whether the decision would be 
appealed, a new suit filed, or a new agreement 
negotiated.

"The decision is an outrage, and I hope it's appealable 
to the Supreme Court," said Gerard Colby, president of 
the National Writers Union, and a plaintiff.

In 2001, the United States Supreme Court ruled that 
digital reproduction of newspaper, magazine and other 
articles without the writers' permission violated their 
copyrights. Publishers removed such articles from their 
digital archives and began requiring freelancers to 
explicitly cede electronic rights to their work.

But that did not resolve claims for monetary damages 
for the earlier violations. In Federal District Court 
in Manhattan, Judge George B. Daniels allowed a 
class-action suit by writers and their organizations; 
without that crucial step, each writer determined to 
win payment would have had to sue individually.

The suit named major publishers and archive services, 
including the Thomson Corporation, The New York Times 
Company, Dow Jones & Company, the LexisNexis unit of 
the Reed Elsevier Group and the Tribune Company.

After years of negotiation, the companies and the 
writers reached a settlement in March, 2005, which the 
judge approved. It provided for mostly modest payments 
to freelancers, and capped the publishers' payout at 
$18 million.

But yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Second Circuit in Manhattan voided the settlement.

In his decision, Judge Chester J. Straub wrote that 
federal copyright law allows claims for damages only by 
writers who have registered their work with the United 
States Copyright Office. The vast majority of 
freelancers did not register, so he said the courts had 
no jurisdiction over their disputes, and the case 
should not have been approved as a class-action suit.


For full story, follow this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/business/media/30copyright.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin