On 11/2/98 18:08PM, Ira Adams at iadams_at_earthlink.net wrote: > >I think that, regardless of the etiquette, it's awfully naive to expect >information not to be shared by the recipients once it has been posted to >a mailing list. Regardless of whether you think it's naive or not, forwarding a posting as written and without permission does constitute a copyright infringment, according to US Law. For further documentation, please see "C" RIghts in "E" Mail by Ivan Hoffman, B.A., J.D. at this url: http://home.earthlink.net/~ivanlove/rights.html I quote him on the issues relevant to this discussion: "Thus, the moment the writer creates the email a copyright begins. And the United States statute provides the following rights to literary works, which includes e-mail:" The rights are listed at the above URL. Furthermore, Hoffman states, "It is no longer required that there be affixed to the writing any copyright notice at all. And the fact that the email is 'published' to another person, to a group of people, on a listserve, news group or otherwise does not make the email available for reposting, copying, or other use--not without the express and written consent of the writer." I also offer some disclaimers that appear on postings from a couple of other mailing lists that immediately come to my mind. ------------------------------------------------------ 1) Envwrite (mailing list for environmental writers) ** All Envwrite messages are copyrighted and may not be reproduced without the express permission of the author. ------------------------------------------------------ 2) W-Med (wilderness emergency medicine mailing list) **Do not reproduce without author's express permission. To unsubscribe, send the text "unsubscribe wilderness-emergency-medicine" ------------------------------------------------------ Please check out my citation for more in-depth analysis of this issue, but re-iterating, JULIO IS 100% CORRECT...you need someone's permission before you re-post an email message. It only takes a few seconds to fire off a private email asking permission to re-post a message and it's only common courtesy. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Neil Harrison-Houston, Texas email: nil_at_nol.net (_at_ _at_) web: www.nol.net/~nil/ ----------------------------ooO~(_)~Ooo---------------------------- 100% recycled electrons *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Just curious regarding this posting without permission and copyright business. If I get a post emailed to me does that mean that I can't show it to someone? That sounds silly, doesn't it. If I can show it to someone, it seems like I could email it to someone. Now, the real questions arise: Can I email it to two people? Three people? All the subscribers of a listserver? Where is the cutoff? When does this become copyright infringement? I was under the impression that copyright infringement kicked in when I tried to pass someone else's work off as my own. This is all very confusing. Now I don't know whether or not I should shield the screen when I'm reading my email so no one else can read messages not sent to them. Bill Ridlon Southern Maine Sea Kayaking Network *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
"Appeal to authority" is a great rhetorical device for efficiency sake. But, it important for one to be correct relying upon it. It often fails, however, where the reader takes the trouble to check the source material and attempt to reprove the hypothesis. The notion that "forwarded mail w/o permission = copyright infringement" fails. The notion that forwarding and/or reading private or personal remarks is rude or inappropriate remains viable. . . . Neil Harrison-Houston, Texas wrote, > Regardless of whether you think it's naive or not, forwarding a posting > as written and without permission does constitute a copyright > infringment, according to US Law. For further documentation, please see > "C" RIghts in "E" Mail by Ivan Hoffman, B.A., J.D. at this url: > > http://home.earthlink.net/~ivanlove/rights.html . . . > Please check out my citation for more in-depth analysis of this issue, > but re-iterating, JULIO IS 100% CORRECT...you need someone's permission > before you re-post an email message. It only takes a few seconds to fire > off a private email asking permission to re-post a message and it's only > common courtesy. Well, I went to the site and read the source material. My conclusion is different that those promoting him and what is said in that material as well. In fact, the author has offered only his general "interpretation" or opinion of copyright law. The site author's interpretation, however, is not the same thing as what is the law (stautory or cases) as applied in the U.S. District Court for Second Circuit or the Seventh Circuit, nor the Court of Appeals. One must appreciate that many cases reaching the U.S. Supreme Court do so because there has been a "conflict" in the Circuit Courts of Appeal in their interpretation of the issue. The site also offers no "opinion" of what the rules may be under state law anywhere, whether in Texas or Maryland or New York or anywhere else for that matter. So, what will confuse you when you try to figure out this one? Another unsupported opinion will do that quite nicely. But we ought to quote the author, as cited, "Therefor, making a copy of the email and reposting it probably constitutes a potential infringement of the copyright belonging to the author." Hardly an empirical statement on the issue. One cannot project fairly from the author's "probably" and "potential" to the assertion that re-posting, per se, "does constitute a copyright infringment, according to US Law". "Fair use" is major part of intellectual property concepts, law and (as an attorney, I say 'thank you') litigation. And, there is the matter of both federal law and state law. (They are not the same.) How can state law govern issues of the internet, including the re-posting of e-mail and other posts? But here is where I jump off and say that re-posts without prior "permission", while they may be rude, they are "fair use" for the sake of our discussions(s) concerning kayaking, paddling, and all issues related thereto. Should one have special fondness for what has been written and prefer that no one read their precious words except as dictated, well, I say write a book or article and try to find out if we will buy it. For that matter, I don't believe that I once read John Winter or Ralph Diaz ask to be praised or credited for their regular, informative and detailed opinions, in a copyright kind of sense should they be quoted. And, practically speaking, pointing to Jackie Fenton's oft-made request, consider that each time one responds to a post and fails to edit the original post would constitute a "re-post". To suggest that this was a copyright violation should it go past the list for any reason is an absurd result. The follow-up from "John W. Fischer" <jfis_at_loc.gov> was helpful. Take the time to check his source provided: http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/ and you will find: > Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. > Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following: > To reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; > To prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; > To distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; > To perform the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works; > To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and . . . > It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright code to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 120 of the 1976 > Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of “fair use,” which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a “compulsory license” under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright code or write to the Copyright Office. And, lets make it clear, when we say re-posts are "fair use", this is what it means: > § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use > > Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -- > > (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; > (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; > (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and > (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. > > The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. No, Neil was not correct. No, Julio was not "100% correct". Mark Zen was more on the money where he encouraged open and broad discussion. And, Ralph thanks for reminding us of the Tim I. "spxnsxn mxn". He was an entirely different case, unlike anything seen for many years. Part of the responsibility for this sheltered existence we have experienced of late must involve credit being given to Jackie Fenton and all the others who maintain these lists for open and frank discussions. So, please, lets get off the high horse about what is and is not "legal", or a violation of law. "Appeal to [legal] authority" in this context almost constitutes bullying. "Rudeness" is an entirely different matter. "Ethics" are inappropriate as a criteria for determining these issues. And, should it matter I write and respond as a reader and kayaker, who happens to be a lawyer, placing a premium on common sense approaches to these matters. Thank you, Richard *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
> This is all very confusing. Now I don't know whether or not I should > shield the screen when I'm reading my email so no one else can read > messages not sent to them. Check out the URLs that Neil sent in if you really want to know about copyright law (that *is* what you are asking, right?). Jackie *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
> SNIP! I don't dare quote you, of course. But I'm not aware that "U. S. law" is written by someone named Hoffman. I could be wrong. But anyway, the whole thing is pretty much off the topic of paddling. Can we get it back on? Is this the place for the joke about the hundred lawyers on the bottom of the sea? Nah. Whoever told it first might sue! If it sounds like I couldn't care less what Hoffman has to say about it, that's probably pretty accurate. Let's go paddling. ************************************************************ I don't do .INI, .BAT, .CFG, or .SYS files. I don't assign apps to files. I don't configure peripherals or networks before using them. I don't manage IRQs and DMA channels, either. My computer works for me, not the other way around. I have a Macintosh. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
> For that matter, I don't believe that I once read John Winter or Ralph > Diaz ask to be praised or credited for their regular, informative and > detailed opinions, in a copyright kind of sense should they be quoted. I have no problem with my stuff being circulated within the confines of electronic mail and even go into print publication for club newsletters and the like. Normally people ask permission for the latter but it would be okay if they didn't; but they seem to always do. I guess I would be concerned if someone gathered it all together and went to a book publisher and palmed it off as their own. But certainly other listservers and club print publications are just dandy as far as I am concerned. I think that circulating things that are said is just great because it provokes thought and gets added on to in very useful ways. For example, I got a note from someone today regarding something I had said about cold water protective clothing; the person states that vegetarians tend to get cold faster. I didn't know that and I hope the person posts it to the list, nyckayaker where such a discussion is going on and looking at how different people have different tolerance in exposure to cold water. A lot of the information flowing through the listservers is like the Amish building a barn, everybody pitches in; only there are multiple barns or listservers and so skills, experience, ideas and information can move from one to the other. It is just great!!! Everyone benefits. So I hope that Richard's last email to the list is heeded regarding what constitutes infringement and what constitutes fair use. I would hate to see everyone clam up or hold their cards too close to their chests. ralph diaz -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Diaz . . . Folding Kayaker newsletter PO Box 0754, New York, NY 10024 Tel: 212-724-5069; E-mail: rdiaz_at_ix.netcom.com "Where's your sea kayak?"----"It's in the bag." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:32:53 PDT