Forum Moderators: phranque
"Ruling against big media companies in an information age dispute, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that free-lance writers may control whether articles they sold for publication in a print newspaper or magazine may be reproduced in electronic form."
Free-lance writers have say in electronic reproduction, justices rule [nandotimes.com]
-G
damn well better be...anyone starts using my stuff without my permission and there will be hell to pay
It is with the radio stations. Virtually all the local radio stations around the US that broadcasted their music and shows live have been shut down temporarily by the RIAA.
We all know that the Titans of media and entertainment have waged a successful PR campaign inspiring the US Congress and courts to defend the holy sacrament of copyright; but we'll bet they never expected to be quite this successful
And the Post too:
[washingtonpost.com...]
I remember back in college that any architecture drawing made by a student was considered property of the college.
One student made a design that a company actually bought and she got nothing but a bullet on the resume. (Granted a *big* bullet on the ol' resume, but still...)
It would not surprise me to see companies 'get around' having to ask permission by doing this.
-G
A federal judge first ruled for the publishers, throwing out the writers' suit on grounds that electronic databases are revisions under the copyright law.
I can see a lot of news and magazines with web sites being affected, but surely most have contracts now that give them the rights to electronic forms as well as print. But is it no longer legal to include that in the contracts? Their archives may now be illegal though now.
How does this affect other countries. eg: Does it realate to the location of the registered office of the publisher, or where the item is read, or the location of the author?
Guess i have to research this more... thanks for the heads up.
