explainer
columns
- What's Up With ACORN?
How a community-organizing group became Republican cause célèbre.
Jacob Leibenluft
posted Oct. 10, 2008 - Is the European Credit Crisis Our Fault?
Not really—they were dumb enough to buy the mortgages.
Christopher Beam
posted Oct. 10, 2008 - Can Paulson Fire Naughty Executives?
How much control does the Treasury have over personnel at AIG?
Juliet Lapidos
posted Oct. 8, 2008 - What a Boy Wants
How do you know whether an adolescent really wants a circumcision?
Brian Palmer
posted Oct. 7, 2008 - Flight of the Penguins
How do you airlift hundreds of stranded birds?
Nina Shen Rastogi
posted Oct. 6, 2008 - Search for more explainer articles
- Subscribe to the explainer RSS feed
- View our complete explainer archive
Who Owns Judith Miller's Notes?Can her bosses turn them over to the feds?
By Daniel EngberPosted Friday, July 8, 2005, at 6:59 PM ET

New York Times reporter Judith Miller was sent to jail on Wednesday for refusing to testify about her conversations regarding outed CIA agent Valerie Plame. Time's Matt Cooper avoided a similar fate when he agreed to testify at the 11th hour. Both the newspaper and the magazine had received subpoenas for their respective reporters' notes. The Times said they had no such documents, and the request was dropped. Time did have access to some of Cooper's notes, however, and eventually handed them over—against Cooper's wishes—last week. Who owns a reporter's notes?
It's a murky issue, and one that hasn't been fully resolved in court. According to the work-for-hire doctrine prescribed by the federal copyright statute, the employer who paid for the production of a work is considered its owner. In general, any notes, tools, or other materials that were created in the process of producing that work also belong to the employer. Rules for freelancers are somewhat less clear and depend on the exact terms of the contract. Some freelance contracts state explicitly that an article is being produced as a "work for hire."
Despite the rules laid out by the federal copyright statute, many individual newspapers have their own policies on reporters' notes. The Wall Street Journal's parent company declares that "any and all information and other material" obtained by its employees on the job is its exclusive property. A New York Times spokesman says reporters' notes are their own, by long-standing convention. Former Times reporters say that while the policy was never stated out loud, some took their records with them when they left their jobs.
The Times did violate this unspoken rule in 1969. A reporter named Earl Caldwell was asked by prosecutors to give over his notes from meetings with various leaders of the Black Panther movement. According to one of the paper's former attorneys, the Times asserted its right of ownership so as to gain standing in the case—and prevent Caldwell from facing the heat alone.
In 1978, another Times reporter, Myron Farber, went to jail for 40 days for refusing to turn over notes related to a murder case. The newspaper was also a defendant in the case and paid a fine of several hundred thousand dollars. At least by Farber's recollection, the paper had formally "returned" ownership of the notes to him, although the paper's former attorney says this never happened. (This may have been a symbolic gesture, as Farber would likely have had the notes in his possession already.)
Time magazine says it handed over "all the records, notes, and e-mail trafficking going over our company system" that were related to Matt Cooper's story. These may have included messages passed back and forth between Cooper and his editors. Miller, on the other hand, never published a story on the Plame affair, and the Times contends that it has no records of her reporting. It could be that Miller has handwritten notes from her interviews with confidential sources, even if there isn't an electronic paper trail at her office. One could argue that according to the work-for-hire doctrine, the Times would own those notes (since there's no contract saying it doesn't). There's little legal precedent, though, on the question of whether a court could compel the Times to demand the notes from Miller.
Next question?
Explainer thanks Jim Crowne of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, James Goodale of Debevoise & Plimpton, Alex Jones of Harvard University, Jane Kirtley of the University of Minnesota, and Eugene Scheiman of McCarter & English.
feedback | about us | help | advertise | newsletters | mobile
User Agreement and Privacy Policy | All rights reserved
- Today's Headlines
- Historical Archives: To Be Sold - Rather Large Buttons
Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:00:00 -0400 - Historical Archives: Ship's Log
Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:00:00 -0400 - Historical Archives: Secret Society Of Free-Bakers Has Fail'd To Gain Influence
Sat, 11 Oct 2008 04:00:00 -0400 - » More from the Onion
Over the LineHarold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
- Robinson: A Little Worried About the Meltdown
- Khaled Hosseini: Sen. McCain, Am I a Pariah?
- Ombudsman: A Puff Piece About the Obamas?
- King: The Anatomy of an Assault
- Today's Headlines
- Can Pakistan Stay Afloat?
Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:20:52 GMT - Florida: Will Palin Cost the GOP Jewish Voters?
Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:07:56 GMT - Review: le Carre Novel Is Missing the Old Sparkle
Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:41:29 GMT - » More from Newsweek
- Today's Headlines
- An Obama-Palin Ticket
Thu, 9 October 2008 18:16:56 GMT - Love the Player, Hate the GM
Thu, 9 October 2008 21:10:07 GMT - Schooling McCain on the Man Code
Thu, 9 October 2008 20:03:04 GMT - » More from The Root

explainer













