wa263@sdcc12.UUCP (bookmark) (08/13/85)
<- bug snack It was several weeks ago that someone asked about copyright protection of private correspondence. The answer (in part) is that Title 17 of the U.S. Code (the copyright law) doesn't treat correspondence separately, but it appears to (non-lawyer) me that correspondence is covered like any other original work by the general provisions of the law. That is, as soon as you've written your letter down on paper (fixed it in tangible form), you own a copyright to it. If you then send it to someone without specifically authorizing republication, the recipient has no authority to make copies (other than for personal (i.e. file) use). They can, however, show it to their friends. They could quote it in a book (fair use), but couldn't reproduce it in whole, especially if it was the reason that people would want to buy the book. If you don't put a copyright notice on the letter, then the defendant could argue (not necessarily with success) that he had a good reason to think that reproduction was authorized, like if you said ``show this to our friends'' in the letter. If you don't register the copyright with the Library of Congress, then you can only sue to stop further publication and recover limited damages, but you can't ask for punitive damages. I think that anybody who routinely files a form-TX on their private letters is nuts. In the State of California, Section 618 of the California Penal Code specifically protects the contents of ``sealed'' private correspondence. It felonious to open and read, or publish, the contents of sealed private letters, unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized by him). Sealed is not well defined. This section clearly does not make it criminal to read open correspondence, like the back of a postcard left lying around. Yet it might, if the DA pursued it just right, make it criminal to publish private correspondence purloined after the seal on the original envelope had been broken by the lawful recipient. In this case, the ``seal'' would be presumed from the behaviour of the owner, like folding it up and tucking it under his socks in the bottom drawer. A civil suit for invasion of privacy would lie if you publish someone's letter without permission and it embarrasses him or her. It is criminal blackmail to threaten to publish an embarrassing or incriminating letter unless paid (money, favors, etc). It is a violation of the postal service laws to intercept a letter on its way, such as by removing it from a mailbox before the addressee can pick it up. Indeed, the postal service treats sealed first-class mail as private property; Postal Regulations require a search warrant to open such mail. (Despite the unambiguous language of this regulation, postal authorities routinely ``lend'' mail to police authorities without warrants. The police presumably open the mail, but they are careful to reseal it before giving it back to the post office. The rationalization employed by the postal service that *they* haven't opened the mail and ``don't know'' that the police have is clearly unethical, improper, and wicked.) Yeah, well, that's about it for now. I can produce some references to the Copyright statute and the Postal Manual if anybody cares-- I left my notebook home today and can't remember the numbers. bookmark@sdcsvax
bhayes@Glacier.ARPA (Barry Hayes) (08/14/85)
I believe that it does not require a warrant for a law-enforcement agency to look at mail and record return addresses and such.