At 5:06 PM 1/24/94 -0600, Chris Caldwell wrote: >I set up a list for the faculty senate at U. Tn. @ Martin. We had some >spirited discussions. last week the editor of the student newspaper >used selected quotes from the list without letting the authors know. >WHat is the legal status of mail posted to open lists? Has there been >any court decisions? There is quite a bit of discussion on this topic in misc.legal newsgroup, as well as in the lists [log in to unmask] and [log in to unmask], and even [log in to unmask] I highly recommend that everyone interested in this topic read Terry Carroll's excellent Copyright FAQ, available for anonymous FTP from rtfm.mit.edu [18.70.0.209], in directory /pub/usenet/news.answers/law/Copyright-FAQ, files part1 - part6. To quote from Copyright-FAQ part2: >2.3) I just wrote a great program/novel/song/whatever. How can I get a >copyright on it? > >Good news. You already have. In the United States, as in most nations, >a work is copyrighted as soon as it is created: > > Copyright protection subsists . . . in original works of > authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now > known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, > reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with > the aid of a machine or device. 17 U.S.C. 102(a). > >and, > > A work is "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression when its > embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority > of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it > to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a > period of more than transitory duration. 17 U.S.C. 101. > >What this means in simple terms is that as soon as you've created your >original work, it's copyrighted. Because of the "either directly or with >the aid of a machine or device" provision, it doesn't matter whether >you've printed it out, or if it's only on your hard drive or floppy disk. > >You don't need any special formalities, such as registering the work with >the Copyright Office, or providing a copyright notice (notice stopped >being a requirement when the U.S. signed the Berne Convention and enacted >Berne Convention Implementation Act in 1988; see section 4.1 for more >information). Howevever, just because any posting you made after 1988 is automatically copyrighted by you does not mean that you still can't use it: To quote from Copyright-FAQ part3: >3.8) Are Usenet postings and email messages copyrighted? > >Almost certainly. They meet the requirement of being original works of >authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression (see section 2.3). >They haven't been put in the public domain; generally, only an expiration >of copyright or an unambiguous declaration by an author is sufficient to >place a work into public domain. > >However, at least with Usenet postings, there are two doctrines which >probably allow at least some copying: fair use (see sections 2.8 and 2.9) >and implied license. > >Whether a particular use of a Usenet posting is a fair use is, as always, >a very fact-specific determination. However, it's probably safe to say >that it's a fair use if the use was not commercial in nature, the posting >was not an artistic or dramatic work (e.g.,, it was the writer's opinion, >or a declaration of facts, and not something like a poem or short story), >only as much of the posting was copied as was necessary (e.g., a short >quotation for purposes of criticism and comment), and there was little or >no impact on any market for the posting. > >A similar argument can be made for quoting of private email messages. Of >course, revealing the contents of a private email message could run afoul >of any of a number of non-copyright laws: defamation, invasion of >privacy, and trade secrecy, to name a few. So even if you won't be >violating any copyright laws, you should consider other factors that may >expose you to legal liability before revealing a private message's >contents. > >Proponents of the implied license idea point out that Usenet postings are >routinely copied and quoted, and anyone posting to Usenet is granting an >implied license for others to similarly copy or quote that posting, too. >It's not clear whether such implied license extends beyond Usenet, or >indeed, what "Usenet" really means (does it include, for example, >Internet mailing lists? Does it include netnews on CD-ROM?). If a >posting includes an express limitation on the right to copy or quote, >it's not at all certain whether the express limitation or the implied >license will control. No doubt it depends on the specific facts. For >example, was the limitation clearly visible to the person who did the >copying? Was the limitation placed such that it would be visible only >after the person who did the copying invested time and money to get the >posting, believing it to be without any limitation? > >With private email messages, a copier who relies solely on the implied >license argument will probably lose, since it's hard to argue that by >sending the private message to a limited audience, the sender intended >for it to be copied and quoted. For email messages to a public mailing >list, the implied license argument may still be sound. > >These theories are largely speculative, because there has been little >litigation to test them in the courts. As a practical matter, most >postings, with a small number of notable exceptions, are not registered >with the Copyright Office. As such, to prevail in court, the copyright >holder would need to show actual damages (see section 2.5). Since most >of these cases will result in little or no actual damage, no cases have >been be brought; it's simply too expensive to sue for negligible damages. ..Christopher Allen ..Consensus Develoment Corporation ..4104-24th Street #419 ..San Francisco, CA 94114-3615 ..(415) 647-6384 Fax ..(415) 647-6383 Voice ..email: [log in to unmask] ..mosaic frontpage: .."ftp://netcom.com/pub/consensus/www/ConsensusFrontDoor.html"