October Term 2000 · Docket 00-201

Can newspapers license freelance writers' work for digital databases?

Freelance writers sue newspapers over unauthorized digital licensing of their articles.

Official caption
New York Times Co. v. Tasini
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Tribe argued for the newspapers' licensing position.

    The Chief Justice closed the oral argument session.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests copyright law limits on newspaper syndication rights.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 28, 2001.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Newspapers want to keep licensing rights for digital use.

Writers want to control and sell their own digital rights.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Newspapers argue their contracts cover all future media uses.

Writers argue they retained exclusive rights to digital distribution.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Does a standard newspaper contract include digital database rights?

Do writers retain copyright over their individual contributions?

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines who controls freelance content in digital markets.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON