From: Cal I Type (kallitype@hotmail.com)
Date: 03/10/01-01:37:21 PM Z
>I can't see much difference between that scenario and the Joe's scenario,
>except that the method of conveyance is by snail mail and not email.
There really isn't much of a difference. Nothing can prevent a person from
bring suit against another person. As the original e-mail likely was not
"registered" as having been copywritren, damages claimed by the "injured
party" would be limited to whatever the party has lost, which, presumably
given the original free distribution, would be nil. If, on the other hand,
a person make a profit selling this CD, than that changes things a bit.
>
>Nick
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joe Portale" <jportale@gci-net.com>
>To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
>Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 9:25 AM
>Subject: Re: Still on Copyright
>
>
> > This has been an interesting thread. To address your question Nick,
>another
> > mail list owner wanted to place all the list emails on a CD and sell
>them
>to
> > the members for the cost of reproduction. No real profit. His legal
> > beagles informed him that he needed to get the written permission of
>every
> > person that posted to that mailing list. I will surmise that if the
>email
> > is sent to a central and common repository, and your intent was to allow
> > people to read the email, no problem. But once another takes control of
> > that email, that is where things get sticky.
> >
> > Editorial comment. For the most part, I believe that the idea of copy
>right
> > protection is a good one. It does protect us from having our work taken
>by
> > others. The unfortunate question is in today's market, who is being
> > protected? Are we really concerned with the rights of the other
>person's
> > intellectual property or have we fallen victim to scam by lawyers trying
>to
> > turn a fast buck? When is enough, enough? These are extreme examples,
>yet
> > they are real. A Japanese firm copy righted the view from a California
>Golf
> > Course and sued three photographers that took pictures of that vista and
> > published them in various commercial magazines. (I'm taking mountains
>and
> > ocean view folks, not someone's house. Check me if I'm wrong, but
>doesn't
> > the world belong to everyone?)
> > A major publishing company found a distant relative of Herman Melville.
>And
> > in his name, sued in federal court for the past and future profits from
>the
> > work Moby Dick. There was an active search for relatives of people
>like,
> > George Fennimore Cooper, Henry David Thoreau, Stephan Crane and others.
>Are
> > these people really interested in defending the rights of these greats?
>I
> > doubt it.
> > So the question for debate is: You create an email, send it to a public
> > list, such as this, should that email be treated as intellectual
>property
> > and copy rightable? These are not private letters, they have been sent
>into
> > the world to be read by all. Comments?
> >
> >
> > Joe Portale
> > Tucson, AZ
> >
> > Fellin' a little preachy this morning.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Nick Makris" <nick@mcn.org>
> > To: "Alt Photo" <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 9:37 AM
> > Subject: Still on Copyright
> >
> >
> > > While we're on the subject, what about email messages found on the
>web?
> > You
> > > may or may not know that all the messages you send are not only
>archived,
> > > they are catagorized by several of the major search engines. Try
> > searching
> > > for your own name and see if the results don't include a message you
>sent
> > to
> > > the list some time back.
> > >
> > > In any case, what is the consideration for copyright of these
>messages?
> > >
> > > Comments?
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:25 AM Z CST