Path: netcom.com!netcomsv!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.ans.net!malgudi.oar.net!news.ysu.edu!psuvm!asg102 Organization: Penn State University Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 09:59:36 EDT From: The Dreamer Message-ID: <93258.095936ASG102@psuvm.psu.edu> Newsgroups: alt.pub.dragons-inn Subject: ADMIN: USA Copyright Information Lines: 106 I just got this information from someone on a mail list to which I belong. I make no claim that any of this material is correct, but the guy seems to know what he's talking about. Since I think that this information is so important, especially to this newsgroup, I am going to edit it and permanently add it to the FAQ. PLEASE tell me if you know of any parts of this inforamtion that is not correct. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~From: wolfe@wolves.durham.nc.us (G. Wolfe Woodbury) Copyright is not nearly as amorphous as you might think. The copyright law in the USA has changed over the past 10 years. Now that the USA is a member of the Berne Copyright Convention, all works of original authorship are *automatically* copyrighted as soon as they are "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." This explicitly includes the memory systems of electronic computers. Therefore, all email, netnews postings, etc. are copyright protected by law from the moment of their creation. It is no longer necessary to affix a "Copyright Notice" to the work for protection to become effective; however, statutory damages cannot be collected if the work is not marked with a proper copyright. A proper copyright notice consists of the word "copyright", the date, and the name of the copyright owner. Additional information can be included, including the place of creation, and the "All Rights Reserved" clause. (Not including the All Rights Reserved clause has some effect on legal remedy in the case of international infringement.) The alternative symbol of a "c inside a complete circle" is acceptable instead of the word "copyright." The common computer abbreviation of "(C)" has no legal standing. Registration of copyright is required before legal action can be instituted against an infringer. Registration in the USA consists of obtaining the proper form and sending it, with the proper fees and supporting materials to the Copyright Office in Washington DC. The use of a mailed envelope to oneself is rather a useless waste of time. Much better is to get a notarized copy of the work with a valid copyright notice on it when you create the work. This is absolute proof, while the US Postal Service postmark has no legal standing. The next question is then (usually) one of "how much can I then quote from a copyrighted posting or email?" Most of the usual sort of quoting that takes place is adequately covered under the "Fair Use" rules. Since in mailing lists, the general purpose of quoting is for "critical commentary", part quoting (especially with interlinear interpolations of comments) is generally covered. Wholesale quoting as a result of unfamiliarity with editors or conventions will also (probably?) be covered under "Fair Use." The hard part lies with the definition of whether a particular infringement is "fair use" or malicious. Incidentally, including a copyright notice voids the "innocent infringement" defense as well. Another question to answer is "who owns the email I receive?" The answer involves the distinction of "owning" the physical record of the message, and the "right" to "copy or publish" the message. The receiver, obviously, owns a physical copy of the message, and they have certain rights by virtue of that ownership - including making a copy for archival/safekeeping purposes. They may also transfer ownership of that copy to another person by handing over *all* copies in their possession. However, the original author still retains the copyright on the message, which includes the right to "publish" and the right to create derivative works. It is not the right of the recipient to "publish" the received message, and doing so can be grounds for infringement suits. "So why bother with this stuff?" Because this mess is misunderstood by most of the general public. The other side of this is to understand that the law is not going to take lightly a "nuisance suit" filing, simply to harass a person. Infringement suits have to prove "substantial" damages have occurred as a result of the infringement. In short, what we post to this mailing list, send in private email to others, or post on NetNews/Usenet is copyrighted from the moment we type it into the computer. We "give" a copy of the message to the recipients, and they have a right to file that away for their own use, and even to show it to others in their own workspace. The recipients have a right to quote part of the message for purpose of "critical review" or other "fair uses" of the item. They cannot (legally) "publish" the item without the authors permission. Generally, the net.threat of "suing for copyright violation" is just that - a threat, since it will be nearly impossible for them to prove substantial damage under copyright law. Which is a totally different thing from libel or slander. :-) Wolfe! Eggheaded today. -- G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den, Durham NC [This site is NOT affiliated ] wolfe@wolves.durham.nc.us [with Duke University! Idiots!] ------------------- Love and Peace and Copyrights and Equal Rights, -The Dreamer-