The International Federation of Journalists, the world’s largest journalists ’ organisation, today welcomed a ruling in the United States Supreme Court that gives freelance writers and journalists control over whether material they sold for print can be used in electronic form.

"This verdict is a stunning victory for writers and a blow to those big media companies who have tried to steal away from creators their fundamental rights," said Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary in Brussels.

The US case was brought by the National Writers Union, an IFJ affiliate, against the New York Times. The case is a landmark decision in favour of authors, says the IFJ, which congratulated Jonathan Tasini, President of the National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981) and his members for their long-running campaign against the New York Times.

"Journalists' unions around the world will take great heart from this decision," said Aidan White, "Now, it's time for the media industry in every country to pay creators their fair share."

By a 7-2 majority, the Court upheld a September 1999 unanimous ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, which found that The New York Times and publishers had committed copyright infringement when they resold freelance newspaper and magazine articles, via electronic databases such as LexisNexis, without asking permission or making additional payments to the original authors.

"Today's decision vindicates the struggle taking place in many parts of the world to protect authors and creators from ruthless media employers who are trying to exploit their work without respecting their rights," said the IFJ which last year launched a worldwide campaign – Authors’ Rights For All – to counter the media employers’ opposition to strong intellectual property protection for authors.

"This is just the fillip that the authors' rights campaign needs," said Aidan White, "Unions of journalists will be rightly cheered and strengthened in their defence of rights."

Further details regarding the Tasini vs. New York Times litigation can be found at: www.nwu.org/tvt/vichome.htm

LIBRARIES

ARL and ALA Commend the Supreme Court's Decision in New York Times v. Tasini Washington, DC--The American Library Association (ALA) and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) commend the Supreme Court's decision today in the case of The New York Times v. Tasini. In a decisive 7-2 ruling, the Justices affirmed the copyright privileges of freelance writers whose works were originally published in newspapers and periodicals and then licensed by the publishers to commercial electronic databases. Today's decision represents a major pronouncement on issues of copyright law in the digital age.

The Court rejected the publishers' argument that a ruling for the authors would have "devastating" consequences. In arguing the case, the publishers had raised a number of serious concerns. Yet, the Court explicitly noted that it was not necessary to delete freelance writers' articles; publishers could explore other alternatives. The Justices noted that there are "numerous models for distributing copyrighted works and remunerating authors for their distribution."

The ALA and ARL had filed an amici curiae brief with the Court in February 2001 suggesting there were options for addressing the concerns of the case. "We felt strongly that there were constructive ways to address the remedial phase of this case which would be fair to the freelance authors, commercial electronic database publishers, and the public--and the Supreme Court in its decision today recognized that there are such options. The lower court has a wide range of discretion to structure a remedy in this matter that will protect the rights of all involved," explained Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel for the ALA.

Implicit in the Court's decision, noted Prudence Adler, Associate Executive Director of ARL, is the recognition that the nation's libraries and archives continue to provide access to the historical record of periodicals and newspapers. "In addition, the Court's ruling recognizes that certain archival media, such as microfilm and microfiche, do not infringe freelance authors' copyrights. Thus the historical record will continue to be available to researchers and the public--a matter of utmost importance to librarians."