Court voids deal to pay freelancers for work sent to Web

Panel rules that courts had no jurisdiction over copyright dispute; decision renders invalid a settlement that favored freelancers.
The New York Times

The story "Court voids deal to pay freelancers for work sent to Web" published November 30, 2007 at 7:23 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

[umbrae]

No jurisdiction?

This would also lead one to believe reproducing/sharing other "copyrighted" material on Internet is not in the jurisdiction of the courts.<br /><br />This would stop the RIAA and MPAA in their tracks.

[Renegade Knight]

Sounds About Right

True enough. If the court can't decide a case on electronic copyright infringment that involves the creating and distribution of online digital files in apparen't violation of copyright...then it stands to reason that the RIAA can't take it's case to court since it also involves the creattion and distribution of online digital content in apparent violation of copyright.

[mmormando]

Stupid question - when did copyright change?

I realize its been a long time, but when I went to school I was taught that your work it copyrighted when you put it on the paper, registering it with the copyright office was strictly a "more proof if you wanted it" step. I take it this is no longer the case, or is this just a case of an "activist judge" interpreting law as he thinks it should be?

[inachu]

Ok then

Then the article they posted then should be taken down since it is copyrighted work.<br /><br />Does this mean companies can void a copyright and use it anyway and the individual person can not?<br /><br />Does not seem fair to me.<br /><br />If they use these articles then they should pay.