∼opyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. The publishers, in response, relied on the privilege of reproduction and distribution accorded them by §201(c) of the Copyright Act, which provides: The freelance authors complaint alleged that their copyrights had been infringed by the inclusion of their articles in the databases. Whether written by a freelancer or staff member, each article is presented to, and retrievable by, the user in isolation, clear of the context the original print publication presented. Under agreements with the periodicals publishers, but without the freelancers consent, two computer database companies placed copies of the freelancers articlesalong with all other articles from the periodicals in which the freelancers work appearedinto three databases. The litigation was initiated by six freelance authors and relates to articles they contributed to three print periodicals (two newspapers and one magazine). This copyright case concerns the rights of freelance authors and a presumptive privilege of their publishers. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 00≲01 NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, INC., et al., 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports.
0 kommentar(er)
