On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Karl Signell wrote:
> Advise subscribers that permission of original author is required before
> quoting outside the list.  The question is ethical, not legal.

That is what I do.  Subscribing to the list (subscribing to the list
establishes a contract, which is different from copyright) grants right
to quoting of postings on the list in replies.  All use outside the list
is forbidden (no forwarding to a friend, colleague, etc. "Did you see/
know/hear about this?", no forwarding to other lists, no quoting in
magazines/journals/etc.) unless explicit permission is obtained from the
author for the copying.  I may also have some copyright for entire postings
as listowner & editor, depends.  Nothing may be published in a magazine,
journal, newspaper, etc. without the express permission of the author and
the listowner(s).  Enforcement is another matter.

The current U.S. copyright law says that the author retains copyright,
unless he legally transfers it, from the moment of creation of his
"original" work for his lifetime plus 70 years, published or not. This is
not exactly that of the Berne Convention, but it will still apply in all
countries signatory to the Berne Convention.  It does not matter whether
the work is "published" or not and there is no need to register the work
with the Copyright office, though if you are going to file suit for
infringement doing so would be a good idea.  You'll also need to show
material harm (largely to income, or future income) in your infringement
suit, most likely.  Publication of the work does not in itself abrogate
the copyright.

Privacy, contract, and copyright are three distinctly separate matters,
each with its own laws.  I doubt there would be a case under privacy,
but there might be under contract and/or copyright.

What the person said about letters is correct, far as I know.  The posessor
of the physical letter owns the physical letter, but the author owns the
content.  So the owner of the physical letter may not publish (define
publish, which basically means "to make public" (nothing said about
printing it) the content without the permission of the author, or whoever
"owns" the content.  To sue for infringement, though, I think you would
have to show material harm (the owner of the copyright planned to publish
"Collected letters of ..." and this prior publication will harm sales).
Not a "privacy" issue, I don't think.

Do you think it is worth a law suit, and do you have they money to conduct
one?  Be sure of your grounds, and get an attorney knowledgable in the
field(s).

My advice is make all the conditions clear from the start.  Enforcement
will be difficult, if not impossible, but you will have grounds to at least
ban the known violators from the list.  If some gross violation is really
worth a law suit, go for it.

I am not an attorney, and the above does not constitute legal advice.

Douglas Winship     [log in to unmask]