Subject: Negotiations Stall in Tasini v New York Times
NINCH-ANNOUNCE (david@ninch.org)
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 13:28:07 -0400
Message-Id: <a0510030db75e74bdc48e@[192.100.21.22]> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 13:28:07 -0400 To: ninch-announce@cni.org From: NINCH-ANNOUNCE <david@ninch.org> Subject: Negotiations Stall in Tasini v New York Times
NINCH ANNOUNCEMENT
News on Networking Cultural Heritage Resources
from across the Community
June 26, 2001
Next Step Negotiations Stall in Tasini v New York Times
--Illustrates Importance of New Distribution Models in Digital Environment--
http://www.nwu.org/
I'm forwarding this statement from National Writers Union president,
Jonathan Tasini, as I believe it illustrates the critical importance
for all in such relationships, as Justice Ruth Ginsburg put it, to
"draw on numerous models for
distributing copyrighted works and remunerating authors for their
distribution."
David Green
===========
>From: "Jonathan Tasini" <jt@pipeline.com>
>To: "Jonathan Tasini" <jt@pipeline.com>
>Subject: Supreme Court Decision--Writers Respond to Threats on Articles
>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:38:00 -0400
>Organization: National Writers Union
>
>This statement was released today from Jonathan Tasini, president of the
>National Writers Union and lead plaintiff in Tasini v. The New York Times.
>
>We are dismayed that the response from some publishers to the
>Supreme Court's ruling has been to quickly reject the olive branch
>we have extended. We
>have urged leaders of the media industry to sit down and negotiate a fair
>resolution, which would build on the comprehensive system the National
>Writers Union has already set up for compensating free-lance writers for
>electronic reuses of their work.
>
>Instead, The New York Times and Time Inc., to cite two examples, have
>quickly declared that they will delete freelance articles from archives;
>they were joined in predicting such a move by the Newspaper Association of
>America. We are surprised that publishers would take such a drastic step for
>several reasons. First, such a step is a direct snub of the United States
>Supreme Court. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Ginsburg wrote, "the
>parties (Authors and Publishers) may enter into an agreement allowing
>continued electronic reproduction of the Authors works; they, and if
>necessary the courts and congress, may draw on numerous models for
>distributing copyrighted works and remunerating authors for their
>distribution."
>
>Second, indeed, we have consistently offered the existing licensing system,
>the Publication Rights Clearinghouse, as the type of solution to which the
>Court's majority referred. The PRC is open to all writers and is endorsed by
>organizations representing tens of thousands of writers. It has already
>negotiated working licensing arrangements, most recently with
>Contentville.com, a commercial website owned by Steven Brill.
>
>Third, deleting the articles today will not wash away the significant
>liabilities facing publishers from years of infringement. Only sensible
>negotiations can lead to a resolution that is fair to all parties.
>
>Finally, if the publishers carry through with their threat, they will only
>alienate broad segments of the public. For example, the American Library
>Association and Association of Research Libraries have already stated
>publicly that there are constructive ways to address the issue, ".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."
>
>We urge rationale publishers, for the sake of their shareholders and
>readers, to come to their own conclusions.
>
>[end of statement]
-- ============================================================== NINCH-Announce is an announcement listserv, produced by the National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage (NINCH). The subjects of announcements are not the projects of NINCH, unless otherwise noted; neither does NINCH necessarily endorse the subjects of announcements. We attempt to credit all re-distributed news and announcements and appreciate reciprocal credit.For questions, comments or requests to un-subscribe, contact the editor: <mailto:david@ninch.org> ============================================================== See and search back issues of NINCH-ANNOUNCE at <http://www.cni.org/Hforums/ninch-announce/>. ==============================================================
From: "Jonathan Tasini" <jt@pipeline.com>
To: "Jonathan Tasini" <jt@pipeline.com>
Subject: Supreme Court Decision--Writers Respond to Threats on Articles
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:38:00 -0400
Organization: National Writers Union
This statement was released today from Jonathan Tasini, president of the
National Writers Union and lead plaintiff in Tasini v. The New York Times.
We are dismayed that the response from some publishers to the Supreme Court's ruling has been to quickly reject the olive branch we have extended. We
have urged leaders of the media industry to sit down and negotiate a fair
resolution, which would build on the comprehensive system the National
Writers Union has already set up for compensating free-lance writers for
electronic reuses of their work.
Instead, The New York Times and Time Inc., to cite two examples, have
quickly declared that they will delete freelance articles from archives;
they were joined in predicting such a move by the Newspaper Association of
America. We are surprised that publishers would take such a drastic step for
several reasons. First, such a step is a direct snub of the United States
Supreme Court. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Ginsburg wrote, "the
parties (Authors and Publishers) may enter into an agreement allowing
continued electronic reproduction of the Authors works; they, and if
necessary the courts and congress, may draw on numerous models for
distributing copyrighted works and remunerating authors for their
distribution."
Second, indeed, we have consistently offered the existing licensing system,
the Publication Rights Clearinghouse, as the type of solution to which the
Court's majority referred. The PRC is open to all writers and is endorsed by
organizations representing tens of thousands of writers. It has already
negotiated working licensing arrangements, most recently with
Contentville.com, a commercial website owned by Steven Brill.
Third, deleting the articles today will not wash away the significant
liabilities facing publishers from years of infringement. Only sensible
negotiations can lead to a resolution that is fair to all parties.
Finally, if the publishers carry through with their threat, they will only
alienate broad segments of the public. For example, the American Library
Association and Association of Research Libraries have already stated
publicly that there are constructive ways to address the issue, ".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."
We urge rationale publishers, for the sake of their shareholders and
readers, to come to their own conclusions.
[end of statement]
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Fri Dec 21 2001 - 11:30:24 EST