The Content Lawyer

The Content Lawyer

An Intellectual Property and Technology Law Firm Focusing on the Legal and Business Needs of Successful Creatives, Content Users, Sports Teams and Entertainment Venues.

+1-202-596-5682
Email: elliott@thecontentlawyer.com

Alderman IP
1455 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004 USA

Open in Google Maps
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Our Services
    • Copyright Law
    • Trademark Law
    • Sports Venue Consulting
  • Articles
  • Videos
  • Contact Us

Tasini: the Perils of Using Independent Contractor Content (2000)

0
Elliott Alderman
Tuesday, 05 September 2000 / Published in Agreement Construction, Collective Works, Contract Enforceability, Contracts, Copyright Agreements, Copyright Law, Databases, Electronic Rights, Employees, Freelance Writers, Independent Contractors, Intellectual Property Law, Publishing, Rights Transfers, Works Made For Hire

Tasini: the Perils of Using Independent Contractor Content (2000)

A recent decision of the Second Circuit underscores just how important careful contract drafting is when dealing with rights transfers in non-employee contexts. In Tasini v. New York Times, the appeals court held that publishers and owners of electronic databases do not, without a specific transfer of rights, have the authority to reuse electronically individual articles originally submitted for periodical print publication. Significantly, even though some of the world’s most preeminent publishers were involved in the transactions underlying Tasini, they still neglected to expressly transfer the rights that they ultimately needed.

The district court had permitted the New York Times and several other large publishers and owners of electronic databases to reuse periodical articles without the permission of freelance writers who had retained copyrights in their individual articles. In the lower court, the writers had argued that their copyrights in the individual articles were infringed when the publishers provided the articles to the electronic databases. The publishers acknowledged that the writers still retained the copyrights to the individual articles, but the publishers maintained that as part of their collective works they had the right to revise the individual elements. The district court accepted this argument, holding that placing the articles in the databases constituted a revision of the individual articles.

The Second Circuit disagreed. On appeal, the court considered whether the electronic databases were a revision of the individual periodical issues from which the articles were taken. Section 201(c) of the Copyright Act provides a publisher with the authority to reproduce and distribute individual articles of its particular collective work, a revision of that work and later collective works in the same series.

The appellate court reasoned that the electronic databases do not qualify for any of the three clauses of section 201(c): the first clause refers to a specific edition or issue of a periodical; the second clause incorporates a revision of a particular edition of a specific periodical; and, finally, the third clause extends to later collective works in the same series, including, for example, a new edition of a dictionary or encyclopedia. The databases contain hundreds or thousands of editions of different periodicals, so they do not constitute a revision of any one. In fact, it was particularly significant to the court that the electronic databases were comprised of elements from many periodicals, since this showed that the selection and arrangement of any one was lost, as was most of the content of any particular edition. It is unclear, however, whether the court’s reasoning would have been different had the electronic databases been more limited and incorporated verbatim or near verbatim digital versions of the underlying texts.

The Second Circuit also rejected the publishers’ argument that an electronic database does not infringe upon an individual author’s article if the other articles published in the particular edition were also individually available. Since section 201(c) would not allow a publisher to sell hard copies of articles to the public even if it also offered all the other articles from the particular edition, the court said, the publisher should not be permitted to do this indirectly through electronic databases.

In short, it is a fundamental tenet of the Copyright Act that creators own the rights to their works unless they affirmatively license these rights or they create works within the scope of an employment relationship (a so-called “work for hire” relationship). For the users of copyrighted works — particularly those such as multimedia producers who generally do not create all of their own content — it is therefore very important to secure the rights that you will wish to use when you rely on independent contractors, rather than employees, to originate materials.

  • Tweet
Tagged under: Collective Works, Contract Drafting, Copyright, Databases, Electronic Rights, Employees, Independent Contractors, Publishing, Rights Transfers, Works For Hire

What you can read next

Some Free Legal Advice: Why You Should Register Your Copyrights and Trademarks (2011)
UCITA: Why Consumers Should Read The Fine Print (2002)
MGM v. Grokster: The U.S. Supreme Court Will Revisit Sony-Betamax (2005)
"Four Decades at the Forefront of Intellectual Property Law."
intellectual-property-lawyer-martindale-hubbell-peer-award-badge-rounded
Alderman IP
1455 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20004 USA
Phone: +1-202-596-5682
Email: elliott@thecontentlawyer.com
Alderman IP
1455 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20004 USA
Phone: +1-202-596-5682
Email: elliott@thecontentlawyer.com
© 1993-2022 Alderman IP

Disclaimer
The materials that you obtain through this website are informational only and are not, nor are they intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your specific factual situation. Neither the availability of this website nor the exchange of e-mails through this site, without an executed engagement letter between this firm and a prospective client, creates an attorney/client relationship. The materials on this website are provided “as is,” and are not necessarily accurate, complete or updated. The firm disclaims both express and implied warranties for the information provided, including but not limited to implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and noninfringement.

© Elliott Alderman 1993-2022. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution only. All copies must include this copyright statement. The Content Lawyer® is a registered trademark of Elliott Alderman.

TOP