Supreme Court says court can approve proposed settlement between freelancers, publishers

Court says freelancer settlement can be approved

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday revived an $18 million settlement of a dispute involving payment to freelance writers for online use of their work.

The high court overturned a lower court decision throwing out a settlement between freelancers, publishers and database owners including Reed Elsevier Inc., educational publisher and owner of the LexisNexis information service.

The proposed settlement covers freelancers who registered the copyright to their works as well as those who didn’t. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York had said courts generally don’t have authority over infringement claims on works that are not copyrighted.

Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed, writing that the lower court did have authority to approve the settlement.

The lawsuit followed a Supreme Court ruling in 2001 that freelance writers have online rights to their work. The case largely applied to articles, photographs and illustrations that were produced 15 or more years ago, before freelance contracts provided for the material’s electronic use.

The case is Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick, 08-103.

The court also:

—Overturned a Florida man’s sentencing. Curtis Johnson was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act to 15 years in federal prison for weapons possession. He got a long sentence because he had three prior violent felonies, one of which included misdemeanor simple battery. But the battery charge was considered a felony for Johnson because he had prior battery convictions in Florida. Justice Antonin Scalia said the Armed Career Criminal Act cannot be applied to Johnson, because Congress did not intend for misdemeanor battery to be applied as a felony under its laws. The case is Johnson v. United States, 08-6925.

—Ruled that Massachusetts gas station owners cannot sue Shell Oil for changing their franchise rental terms. Several Shell station owners sued the company for damages after it stopped providing a rent subsidy it to franchisees, saying Shell Oil had effectively terminated their contracts. But Justice Samuel Alito said for the court that Shell Oil was not violating the Petroleum Marketing Practice Act, which limits the way companies can terminate agreements with service stations.

Alito said the contracts were not terminated because the owners immediately signed new agreements with Shell and kept operating.

The case is Mac’s Shell Service v. Shell, 08-240.