The US Supreme Court has overturned an appeals court ruling which threw out an US$18m settlement between publishers and freelance writers concerning the reproduction of work on the internet.

The settlement, which took four years to negotiate, was deemed invalid by the US Court of Appeals in 2007 because the lower court judge who approved it in 2005 was thought not to have the authority to do so.

However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the trial judge had jurisdiction to approve the settlement.

The Supreme Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the settlement, or on whether the trial judge should dismiss freelancer infringement claims over unregistered works.

The settlement was prompted by a 2001 decision by the Supreme Court in favor of six freelance writers claiming copyright infringement against The New York Times for publishing their work on the internet. Although most publishers include a clause in freelance contracts concerning reproduction of work online, the work in question dated back more than 15 years when such contracts did not exist.

More class action suits followed, involving publishers including Reed Elsevier, New York Times Co, Thomson Reuters Dow Jones & Co, and Knight Ridder.

The parties reached a global settlement in 2005 which would pay the plaintiffs US$18m collectively. Many freelance writers supported the settlement, but some objected. The objectors said that writers who had not registered their works were treated unfairly because their share would be reduced if there was not enough money to go around.

They took their case to the Court of Appeals which ruled in 2007 that the trial judge did not have jurisdiction over the claims of writers with unregistered work.

With the Supreme Court having reversed that decision, the case will go back to the lower court for final approval.

Source: www.ipworld.com