Supreme Court Resurrects $18 Million Internet Copyright Settlement

The United States Supreme Court unanimously decided on March 2, 2010 in Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick, that freelance authors could bring copyright disputes to a federal court even when they have not registered their work. The justices agreed, an 8-0 decision, to let an $18 million settlement with online companies stand.

Freelance writers, who said that newspapers and magazines had committed copyright infringement by making their work available on electronic databases without their permission, filed a lawsuit.

The publishers in the suit included Reed Elsevier, The New York Times Company, the Thomson Reuters Corporation, Dow Jones & Company, now owned by the News Corporation, and Knight Ridder, which was bought by McClatchy Company.

After three years of negotiation, six publishers, including Reed Elsevier, the owner of the online newspaper archive on LexisNexis, and New York Times Co., agreed to pay the freelance authors to settle their claims. The parties settled the suit with the district court's approval.

The intended settlement was prompted by The New York Times Company v. Tasini, a 2001 Supreme Court decision from ruling in favor of six freelance authors claiming copyright infringement. Copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. Many freelance works were removed from internet databases after this case. Now, most publishers require freelance writers to sign contracts granting both print and online rights.

However, ten authors, including Irvin Muchnick, objected to the settlement because the District Court put the authors with registered copyrights and those without into the same class. According to Adam Liptak of The New York Times, "the objectors claimed authors who had not registered their works were treated unfairly because their share would be reduced if there was not enough money to go around." They appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, which ruled sua sponte that the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the case and courts generally do not have authority over infringement claims on works that are not copyrighted.

The United States Supreme Court reversed the court's ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas explained, Congress would have to "clearly state" registration is needed for jurisdiction. Therefore, the court did have the power to approve the settlement.

This prompts me to question, what is going to happen in the future for works that are not copyrighted? Many publishers are taking more serious precautions to avoid such conflicts. If a creator chooses to copyright their work, how is it fair that someone who does not get the same treatment? I wonder how the courts will decide on such issues in the future, when it happens again.

More information on this ruling can be found at:

The Examiner and NY Times

---Mona Dalia