The suit – a combination of three smaller actions – accused major publishers, including The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and database companies such as Lexis-Nexis and Knight-Ridder, of the systematic copyright infringement of thousands of freelance writers' articles.
This material was originally published, with permission, in papers and magazines, but was later included in on-line databases without consent or compensation.
According to the American Society of Journalists and Authors, the Authors Guild, and the National Writers Union, the publishers and database companies targeted by the suit have now agreed to pay writers up to $1,500 for stories in which the writers had registered the copyright.
Writers who failed to register their copyrights will receive up to $60 per article, but are likely to have valid claims for hundreds of such articles.
The amount paid will also depend on a number of other factors, including the original fee paid for the article, the year it was published, and whether the writer permits the future use of the article in the databases.
The settlement proposal has been put before the court, and preliminary approval is expected within the next month.
"We are delighted," said Nick Taylor, president of the Authors Guild. "This is a substantial settlement, and, if approved, it will vindicate freelance writers who deserve compensation and control for their work in the electronic marketplace. It proves our contention all along that access and on-line advertising revenues shouldn't all go into the pockets of big media, but should be shared with the creators."
The case follows a landmark ruling in 2001, which established that publishers violate the copyrights of freelance writers if they re-publish articles on-line without consent or compensation beyond that obtained for hard copy publication.
The writers' groups involved in the action have set up a web site to assist freelancers interested in making a claim.
