Dear Eric, As discussions have continued on the subject of banners, it has become apparent that there are two different types of digests that can exist. One is the type that Kevin was referring to (since I've been participating with him in his list launching) in which the messages to the list will be written by individuals who have a copyright to their individual notes (without any requirement for a copyright notice). It is a listserv that is not being planned in a corporate setting and one in which Kevin is not planning to assert any personal copyright. It was not obvious to me (and presumably to others) that your response was intended to apply to a corporate setting in which the *list-owner* *was* asserting a copyright over *all* the individual messages included (and had a legal right to do so) This is a completely different set of circumstances which is only now becoming apparent as the dialogue continues. In such a situation, it is, of course, *essential* that a copyright of the *list-owner* *must* be included. And, in fact, such a copyright notice *over-rides* the presumed copyright of the individual author (presuming that the list-owner has the legal authority to do so) Now that you have explained the type of digest to which you are referring, your response is comprehensible and appropriate. Without this explanation, it was not. The comment that: > However, your work is better protected if it bears an explicit > copyright is irrelevant to a corporate list-owner who *must* post the copyright notice in order to claim the copyright in the first place over the individual messaages, and in this instance, the notice is *mandatory* . By definition, the corporate list-owner *must* post the copyright notice and thus will have an opportunity to claim more and different damages. Without the copyright notice, not only could they not claim 'more and different' damages, they could claim nothing at all since the copyright could be considered to apply to the individual authors. And if these individual authors wished to enable such protection, *they* would need to include the copyright notice in their own messages (not have it added by the list-owner) > It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning > people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but > it is not necessary. For a list-owner who is *not* planning to assert a copyright over the individual messages (and cannot legally do so), such a notice is not necessary. If the individual author of a message wants to take advantage of laws which might enable him or her to 'get more and different damages' *the author* can include a copyright notice on all his message. The list-owner of this type of list is *not obligated* to assist them in this effort because he or she will have *no* right to claim damages personally. In fact, 'attempting' to 'assist' may place an undue burden on the list-owner that he may not wish to assume. So in summary, to return to Kevin's inquiry regarding the type of list he is planning, the list-owner has *no responsibility* and there is *no necessity* for him to place *any copyright notice* on the digest at all. Regards, Marianne Date sent: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 19:57:37 +0200 Send reply to: LISTSERV list owners' forum <[log in to unmask]> From: Eric Thomas <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Banners on mail messages To: Multiple recipients of list LSTOWN-L <[log in to unmask]> You use the top banner to add a copyright statement when the copyright is NOT to be held by the poster. One example is when you set up a list to repost copyrighted material on a regular basis with the owner's permission, for instance a newsletter. Anywhere where you'd want to add a copyright manually - you can now do this automatically. Another example is an internal corporate list where all subscribers are employees and are using the list in the course of their professional activities. I suppose their employment contract is the place where it is established that they don't own the stuff they write in the course of their job and under what conditions exactly, but I also suppose the lawyers were concerned that it might not be clear to *others* that the work is owned by the company and not the poster. All in all, it doesn't matter. If a customer feels that they can't buy the product because of a tiny missing feature that concerns their lawyers, our answer is usually to implement the feature, and not to challenge their lawyers' competence. Eric > If I receive a big digest that comes with one banner at the top of the > digest (but not at the top of each individual message) that says > "Copyright 1995 Foo Inc. Redistributed with permission. All rights > reserved worldwide" and I have a mail program that happily bursts the > digest into individual messages, I can then view them individually and > not see the copyright. I can honestly forget about the copyright that was > in the header 30 messages above the one I am reading. I can then forward > this to a friend for his private amusement, and unless I tell him he > won't have a clue that this is copyrighted material. He may repost the > material in good faith. And who gets sued? Not the friend, who couldn't > know, and probably not me, at least not unless I have enough money to > make the case interesting to the lawyer. The Internet consulting company > who did the repost and runs the list gets sued, because they did not take > "reasonable steps" to ensure it was clear to everyone that the material > was owned by Foo Inc, and because there is probably a contract between > them and Foo Inc. saying under what conditions they can repost the > material, and a missing comma in page 21 that after a $100,000 legal > battle will establish that they screwed up. That is the kind of situation > you want to avoid. > > > It is true that it can be *useful* to include a copyright notice, > >but as indicated in Templeton's article..." it is not necessary. " > > It is not necessary to include a copyright in order for the work to be > protected. However, your work is better protected if it bears an explicit > copyright. This is particularly important when the work you are posting > is not copyrighted by you, but by a third party, especially if it's a big > corporation. And this is even more important when the work is > confidential. If you get a message from me describing the internals of > some cutting edge industrial process, you may assume that it is > copyrighted and ask me whether it can be reposted. Or you may not know > anything about the technology in question and think it is a common bread > toaster, and send it to a friend who works in that field to ask him to > explain what this all means. But if it starts with: > > ************************************************************************* > *************************** IBM CONFIDENTIAL **************************** > ************************************************************************* > > Copyright 1995 IBM Corp. > > I'll bet you'll think twice before forwarding it to someone working at > DEC who knows that stuff and can explain it to you. Of course in the > academic world we hardly ever run into this kind of situation. But some > companies use LISTSERV for internal product design and development. The > material they post to the list is confidential and owned by the company. > They want to make this clear with each and every message, and we have to > provide the necessary tools. > > Eric > > Marianne Brosseau [log in to unmask]>