a claim on behalf of employees of the Globe? On the cross-appeal: Whether the electronic databases infringed the right of freelance authors; and Globe staff writers. The bulk of the opinion was focused on the first of the cross-appeal issues. Main Issue The Court first recognized that the author held the copyright in her articles, and the newspaper held the copyright in the compilation or collection of works that contained them. As a result, the issue became whether the electronic databases were a reproduction of the original article, or of the newspaper. The Court then noted that though the newspaper had the right to modify its collection, it did not have the right to decontextualize its articles so much so as to remove the intimate connection to the newspaper. The Court agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court who found in Tasini that the databases were not a reproduction of the original collected work. The Court stressed that a primary determinant of their result was the output that the user received when querying the database, not the input that the Globe put into it. Indeed, the Court found that the CD-ROM database did not violate the author's copyright as it presented articles related to that day's paper when a user viewed a particular article. Though the layout was different, the Court reasoned that the essence of the collection remained. Overall, the Court ruled that Robertson's rights had been violated by the addition of her works into two of the three databases. Secondary Issues After determining that Robertson could claim copyright infringement for the inclusion of her articles in two of the databases, the court then turned to the secondary issues, and ruled that: Only an exclusive license needed to be in writing. A grant of a non-exclusive license does not need to be in writing to be enforceable. Employees of The Globe and Mail should not have been certified as members of the class. The employees retained no rights in the works when the works were produced in accordance with their employment agreements. Given the previous finding that two of the databases did not substantially reproduce the newspapers as they were in the print edition, it was found that the databases were not "newspapers, magazines or similar periodicals for purposes of s. 13(3)" of the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Robertson's appeal and allowed the cross appeal on