Do the words "Tasini v. New York Times" mean anything to you? They should, particularly given the fact that information professionals are caught in the middle of a very interesting copyright conundrum. I'm reminded of a statement from The Wizard of Oz: "Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore!"
This case, which is pending before the United States Supreme Court, pits freelance authors against publishers (New York Times, New York Newsday, Lexis-Nexis, to name a few), and rests on the question of whether copyright law allows the latter to print articles written by the former and make them available in digital form (in particular, on the web). Publishers argue that web-based versions of newspapers are merely editions of newspapers. The freelance authors maintain that copyright law only allows for article re-use if the new version of the work is substantially similar to the original. Web versions, they suggest, are nothing like the printed versions of newspapers and, thus, publishers have neither the right to put such articles on the web or to make them available to other online information services. The original case in federal court was won by the publishers. But then the authors appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, overturned the original decision. The publishers immediately requested a review by the high court.
As a result of the Supreme Court's decision to review Tasini v. New York Times, U.S. library associations have become the darlings of the information world. Both sides have courted SLA and the rest of the community in an attempt to convince us to file amicus curiae (a "friend of the court" brief) in support of their respective causes. The American Library Association and the Association of Research Libraries have agreed to do so. As of this writing, SLA has remained neutral on the matter, citing concerns with both enforcement of copyright law and the impact of the case on access to archives of articles and the costs of said access. But it certainly has made for some interesting theater, as authors and publishers have made their pitches in an attempt to sway our position. Authors have traditionally been allies of the library community in recent copyright legislative battles. Depending on which library association you ask, publishers are either A) friends of the information professional with clear interests in defending their intellectual property rights; B) greedy protectors of their IP rights and oppressive enforcers of the law; or C) some of each but certainly neither hawks nor doves.
For its own part, SLA believes that the outcome of this case will have a significant impact on the manner in which information professionals will access information, engage publishers, strategically plan for future resource acquisition, and meet the needs of our users. We believe that the parties involved are in a position to resolve this matter without the Supreme Court's intervention, and the community of information professionals deserve that kind of outcome. Reliance on a decision by the court is a gamble for both sides and our profession. A win by the publishers may signal their total control of the information marketplace, which is never a good thing. A win by the authors may severely affect the quality and quantity of content archived by online services and the price to be paid for access to that contentclearly not a victory for the profession. As users of information, you have a role to play by communicating with your suppliers about the need for a responsible outcome that will benefit everyone, including both authors and publishers. Don't hesitate to use your powers of persuasion!
David R. Bender, Ph.D.
Executive Director
RSS
Feedback form
