Supreme Court and National Geographic

mercphoto · March 9, 2005

http://www.law.com/jsp/printerfriendly.jsp?c=LawArticle&t=PrinterFriendlyArticle&cid=1110310803826

Saw this on Rob Galbraith today. Some are upset over it. To me the court's ruling made sense. Comments?

wxwax · March 9, 2005

I understand why writers and photographers might be upset. But I understand the concept behind the decision - the CD's are the magazine in a different form, unchanged save for the medium.

Thanks for posting it.

DoctorIt · March 9, 2005

there sure is a lot of legal mumbo jumbo in there, but from what I gather, why shouldn't NG be able to sell back issues? whether they're on a CD or in print... why would writers get mad about this, NG paid them for their article, right? So then it's NG's.

I'd say thanks for the read, but the reading part gave me a jargon induced headache...

Angelo · March 9, 2005

Well I can see the difficulty with this for the magazine's contributors that will no doubt find eventual correction in future contracts.

As a contibutor I negotiate a rate, or accept a rate of pay, based on the publication's circulation; a measurable increment controlled through the Library of Congress. In so doing the publisher retains the right to sell all copies of the issue in which my work appears, first release or back issues, but limited to the series run of that issue. The publisher does not reprint additional copies of a given issue without renegotiating licenses for content. A reverse example of this would be the publisher renegotiating advertising fees for a new issue run and they do.

Of the original LOC publication run, many issues will be held by libraries. Anyone can continue to view those copies for as long as they exist but no additional fees are paid to do so.

In this matter the publisher has essentially reprinted a new run and offers it up for sale, no doubt at a premium, so the contributors understandably want their share. Interesting. This is exactly what happened in the TV Series-to-DVD market several years ago and the findings were in favor of the artists - writers, actors, etc. - who never negotiated for those rights but neither did the producers, who were essentially highjacking creative works for extended profit.

luckyrwe · March 9, 2005

Reminds me of TV stars who went broke and the TV stations made tons on "residuals." I'd say the writers/photographers have a case if they were paid based on circulation.

On the same note, you don't see NG getting money from all the advertisers in those issues!

mercphoto · March 10, 2005

Angelo wrote:

As a contibutor I negotiate a rate, or accept a rate of pay, based on the publication's circulation; a measurable increment controlled through the Library of Congress. In so doing the publisher retains the right to sell all copies of the issue in which my work appears, first release or back issues, but limited to the series run of that issue.

In the case of contracts written in that way I can understand someone's gripe then.