From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 03/10/01-04:52:23 PM Z
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, Callie Type wrote:
> lets say I wanted this-or-that info and you replied with a "according to the
> Post Factory journal..." Probably, Judy wouldn't mind and probably would
> enjoy the plug. But what if you quoted entire pages, and did it repeatedly?
On the back cover of Post-Factory I print the most dire warning I can
compose, about curses unto the 9th generation and "no part of this pub...
maybe be reproduced or used in any form or by any means... without written
permission." Etc. So I certainly have a *case* against mass reproduction
should I choose to make it, tho no case against that kind of citation,
which is of course not only legal, but a bouquet.
Meanwhile, civilisation depends on the capacity to make distinctions,
between a blob of 4 cells in vitro and a living person, between free
speech and libel, between art expression and stealing, between quoting and
plagiarism, etc.
The indeterminate areas are why lawyers get rich enough to send their
children to prep schools where they become drug addicts. Oops, I digress.
What I meant to say is my own rule of thumb in what *I* quote from e-mail
is,
First of all, as I understand it, an e-mail list is a form of
"publishing." So if someone has already put the message in e-mail,
*especially,* but not only, to a *list,* it is in a sense published, so
the expectation of PRIVACY is well below what it might be in a personal
letter sealed & mailed to one person. For instance when I published "The
Gold Flap" from this list in P-F #4 I followed that advice, although from
a garden-variety lawyer, not the (disgraced and discredited) Supremes.
But that's a separate issue from copyright. Here I think Callie probably
has the gist of it (as I understand it). I feel free to quote a few
sentences under the principle of *fair use* as is done in a book review or
criticism anywhere -- and have yet to hear of author protest when the
review is *good* (tho I was once sued by a photographer when Women Artists
News printed a review that was *bad* !!!). If we couldn't quote what
we're commenting on, discourse of most kinds would come to a screeching
halt.
As a practical matter, I always try to e-mail for permission, certainly if
more than a sentence or two. But P-F is sponsored by a non-profit
*educational* organization with state charter, which might (or not) affect
ability to sue me.
The question Callie raises tho is whom will *I* sue? The hypothetical
case she cites is not a matter of quoting a person's words, but of copying
large portions or all of copyright material in print and giving it in
concrete form to others without limit.
The injury here (which I will formulate better after I graduate from law
school) is that it removes likelihood of selling what was created for
sale, and also as a piece of intellectual property which it DILUTES, and
is thus a form of taking on both counts.
> She might get perturbed and ask you to stop. What if you didn't? She
> might haul your ass into court, but she would still have to convince the
How about *publicity,* printing a reproach in a future issue!!!??? To
some extent guilt works with us middlebrow types: students might scold
their teacher. In most cases of course the reprintee doesn't know of the
reprinting. It goes on everywhere all the time. Again I think it's a
matter of making distinctions: If a teacher finds something relatively
brief and important to share, I think it's good for the general society.
If a teacher gets lazy and greedy and turns to wholesale copying.... it's
not, IMO.
> >From: Nick Makris <nick@mcn.org>
> >So, how is my transfering this information different than someone who finds
> >it via one of the varied searches available on the net. And, isn't the
> >copyright notice required somewhere in all of this?
I think a BIG difference is you're doing that one-on-one, not publishing
it as part of an operation you're paid to run, that is, appropriating it
into a course in which you hand it out to hundreds of students, perhaps
forevermore. One of the reasons a school hires you is because it thinks
you know the curriculum well and can provide, WITHOUT appropriating
copyright material wholesale.
> > > > 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?)
If that *view* was only from their land, this non-lawyer imagines they
have a case. If you want the view, try going next door with a ladder, or
cherry picker. You might, however, have to pay the owner a token for being
on their land, tho maybe some prints would suffice. you're safest on
public land, maybe.
> > > > 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.
Some folks recently decided the income tax was illegal and they didn't
have to pay. Odds are they do, and the wheels of "justice" begin to grind
s-l-o-w-l-y. Similarly, it's possible that common sense may prevail in
other matters as well... otherwise: who has got copyright on the bible and
the torah even the koran? I think I have a direct line to........
best,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:25 AM Z CST