The suit – a combination of three smaller actions – accused
major publishers, including The New York Times and the Wall Street
Journal, and database companies such as Lexis-Nexis and
Knight-Ridder, of the systematic copyright infringement of
thousands of freelance writers' articles.
This material was originally published, with permission, in
papers and magazines, but was later included in on-line databases
without consent or compensation.
According to the American Society of Journalists and Authors,
the Authors Guild, and the National Writers Union, the publishers
and database companies targeted by the suit have now agreed to pay
writers up to $1,500 for stories in which the writers had
registered the copyright.
Writers who failed to register their copyrights will receive up
to $60 per article, but are likely to have valid claims for
hundreds of such articles.
The amount paid will also depend on a number of other factors,
including the original fee paid for the article, the year it was
published, and whether the writer permits the future use of the
article in the databases.
The settlement proposal has been put before the court, and
preliminary approval is expected within the next month.
"We are delighted," said Nick Taylor, president of the Authors
Guild. "This is a substantial settlement, and, if approved, it will
vindicate freelance writers who deserve compensation and control
for their work in the electronic marketplace. It proves our
contention all along that access and on-line advertising revenues
shouldn't all go into the pockets of big media, but should be
shared with the creators."
The case follows a landmark ruling in 2001, which established
that publishers violate the copyrights of freelance writers if they
re-publish articles on-line without consent or compensation beyond
that obtained for hard copy publication.
The writers' groups involved in the action have set up a web
site to assist freelancers interested in making a claim.
