From: David Foy (dfoy@marketactics.com)
Date: 09/21/03-08:47:30 PM Z
Original materials (including writings) which are published do not thereby
automatically go into the public domain. They remain the property of the
person who originated them. Copyright, in other words. Posting to a
discussion group is surely a form of publication.
However, it is not the idea that is someone's property, but the expression
of that idea. Any of us are free to make images of Half Dome, even though
the Ansel Adams Trust holds a copyright on his images of Half Dome. We can
copyright a book of genealogy based on census records, and so can anyone
else, based on the same records. A Bach cantata, long in the public domain,
can be published in a new edition by anyone, but that edition cannot be
copied.
So it would surprize me if anyone could lift these posts verbatim, or nearly
so, publish them, and get away with it. But it would surprize me even more
if someone could not legitimately summarize and re-state them.
David Foy
-----Original Message-----
From: Kate Mahoney [mailto:kateb@paradise.net.nz]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 2:30 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Copyright
Here in N.Z. anything that is original intellectual property is copyright
whether so marked or not. So in our law, yes, this is copyright to me.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Makris" <nick@mcn.org>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: Copyright
> Katharine, Are you suggesting that the posts you speak of below are
> protected by copyright laws??
>
> n
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 5:11 AM
> Subject: Copyright
>
>
> > While I'm here, I've been thinking it's time for another reminder about
> > copyright laws, after a private correspondent suggested that because the
> > information from this forum is archived in such a way that it can be
> > accessed by the general public, that makes it fair game to be used by
> > anyone for any purpose; for example a list member could collect and
> > publish information from this list without permission of the authors,
> > perhaps even without attribution.
> >
> > (Have you noticed, BTW, that it is invariably people who have never had
> > an original thought or created an original thing who think copyright
> > laws are optional?)
> >
> > A member of my family is an attorney who serves on the American Bar
> > Association committee dealing with legal issues around the internet. She
> > says people like to use two different excuses to violate copyright laws
> > on the internet. The first excuse is, "everyone does it." Her answer to
> > that is that if she's driving 75 miles an hour in a 55 mile zone, and
> > everyone around her is also driving 75 miles an hour, that doesn't
> > change the fact that she's breaking the law. The second excuse is that
> > the internet has rendered copyright laws null and void. Her answer to
> > that is that the copyright law has not changed. The fact that things are
> > easy to rip off on the internet doesn't make it okay.
> >
> > It's kind of like those public service commercials that said "Don't help
> > a good boy go bad" (by leaving your keys in the car). By that logic,
> > it's incumbent on the person who has knowledge not to share it, because
> > once shared, it's fair game to be ripped off. If people with information
> > stop sharing that information, that will be the end of the internet and
> > of this forum. I personally think that would be a terrible shame. So,
> > I'm just saying, think about it.
> >
> > Katharine Thayer
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST