[WEB4LIB] RE: Article - "Post-Tasini: Pity the Librarians"

[rich at richardwiggins.com]

Nonsense!  NYT et al have rewritten their freelancer contracts to provide for repurposing in all media for all time.  The ruling only applies to a relatively small group of people who freelanced in a narrow time period.  (I don't have the numbers handy, on the order of 26,000 authors in the case of the Times.)  This is a case about a unique historical group; it does nothing for today's freelancers -- or authors on staff, for that matter.

Content aggregators like Lexis-Nexis certainly do pay for the content. They pay the firms they buy the content from. If you have a quarrel, it's with the firms freelancers contract with initially -- such as the Times. Don't blame aggregators for what the original publications negotiate. Still, the whole industry could come to grips with this.  A much better battle for the NWU would've been to fight for a model of "residuals", which the TV industry evolved to provide decades ago.

/rich


On Sat, 30 June 2001, "JENNIFER A. HEISE" wrote:

> 
> Lexis/Nexis, NYT, et al, are no longer allowed to make money off
> something they refuse to pay for, but charge us high premiums for.
> 
> - j. heise

_____________________________________________________

Richard Wiggins
Consulting, Writing, and Lecturing on Internet Topics
rich at richardwiggins.com  http://richardwiggins.com