New York Times Co. v. Tasini
Headline: Court rules publishers cannot place freelancers’ newspaper and magazine articles into searchable electronic databases without authors’ permission, blocking that electronic use and finding both print and database publishers liable for infringement.
Holding:
- Requires permission or licensing before including freelance articles as standalone items in databases.
- Pushes publishers to change freelancer contracts and licensing practices for digital rights.
- May force databases to remove unlicensed freelance content or negotiate retroactive agreements.
Summary
Background
Six freelance authors who wrote twenty-one articles for two newspapers and a magazine sued after the publishers permitted two electronic database companies to copy and sell those articles without the authors’ consent. The publishers licensed article text to NEXIS, NYTO, and GPO. Each database shows articles as separate, searchable items, often without original layout, images, or links to surrounding material. The authors registered copyrights and sought relief. The district court ruled for the publishers; the Second Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court reviewed the case.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether section 201(c) lets a publisher reproduce or distribute a freelance article “as part of” a collective work or a revision. The majority focused on how database users see the pieces: individually and detached from the original edition or any revision. Distinguishing databases from microfilm, the Court concluded that presenting articles standing alone is not reproduction “as part of” a collective work or its revision. It held that §201(c) does not authorize the database copying and affirmed the Court of Appeals, finding both database operators and the print publishers liable. The Court left remedy decisions to the lower court.
Real world impact
The decision means databases and publishers generally need permission to include freelancers’ work when it is sold or distributed as individually retrievable items. Publishers may need new contracts or licenses, and databases may remove or seek agreements for freelance content. Congress, courts, or parties can develop licensing models; final remedies and scope will be decided below.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Breyer, dissented, arguing that electronic reproductions are “revisions,” invoking media neutrality and warning about effects on public access and historical databases.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?