The Supreme Court of the United States today ruled that the New York Times, Time Inc. and other publishers infringed the copyrights of freelance contributors by selling their articles to Lexis/Nexis and other electronic databases without permission. The decision in Tasini, et al. v. The New York Times, et al. could have far-reaching economic ramifications for the many magazine and newspaper publishers and electronic databases that make freelance articles available to subscribers, as well as for the thousands of freelance journalists and authors affected by the case. Justice Ginsburg wrote the decision for the 7 to 2 majority, with Justices Stevens and Breyer dissenting.

"This decision is a great victory, not just for freelancer writers, but for readers as well," said the author Letty Cottin Pogrebin, president of the Authors Guild and a named plaintiff in the Guild's class action suit which will now proceed in an effort to implement principles established by the decision. "The Supreme Court clearly articulated a fundamental position that we have held and protected for years: Others should not disseminate or profit from our creative product without first securing our permission and paying us our fair share. By securing this right for us, the Court has enhanced our ability to make a living at our trade, while we provide content for readers that can be accessed via new technologies, now and far into the future."

Today's decision found that the plaintiffs, six freelance writers, control intellectual property rights when their newspaper and magazine articles are sold by their print publishers for inclusion on electronic databases. In 1999, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled under the Copyright Act that without the authors' express permission, their print publishers do not have the right to license their freelance articles to the databases. The defendants, including The New York Times, Time Inc., Newsday, and the electronic databases Lexis/Nexis and UMI, sought Supreme Court review, arguing that electronic databases are so necessary to the "real world's" ability to disseminate and obtain information, a requirement to obtain the freelancers' permission would have devastating effects on research and scholarship.

An amicus brief submitted by Authors Guild members Jacques Barzun, James Gleick, Justin Kaplan, Tracy Kidder, Nicholas Lemann, John Lukacs, Bob Massie, Jack Miles and Jean Strouse argued that research and scholarship would be harmed much more from failing to pay the authors than from forcing publishers to share the profits from electronic licensing with their contributors.

Pending this decision, three lawsuits seeking class action status have been filed against several electronic databases, including one brought by the Authors Guild, Inc. The lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the Southern District of New York and are set to go forward within thirty days.