gjh@otter.hpl.hp.com (Graham Higgins) (08/03/89)
I'd appreciate some guidance/instruction on the position of copyright on usenet contributions. I am doing a bit of spare-time writing for one of the U.K. ST mags (STWorld). Between us we have been considering doing a monthly "Best of ST usenet" feature. Apart from a complete rewriting of the contribution (at best plagiarism --- but the contributor *would* be acknowledged), how far can I go towards direct quotes/inclusion of text? I would also appreciate contributors' views on the ethics of this. I don't want to put people's noses out of joint, nor get anyone into bother with employers, hence this enquiry. I am approaching the feature as an information-propagation feature. For eaxmple, in the UK, we generally don't get to see the U.S. Atari Corp staff's contributions (except those priviledged few with internet access). Some of the info (such as Ken's warning to ACC creators) is definitely worth propagating --- actually, so are most of the contributions, I think it's a very high standard of discussion. Comments welcome. Cheers, Graham ====== ------------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Higgins @ HP Labs | Phone: (0272) 799910 x 24060 Information Systems Centre | gray@hpl.hp.co.uk Bristol | gray%hplb.uucp@ukc.ac.uk U.K. | gray@hplb.hpl.hp.com
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) (08/03/89)
In article <570023@otter.hpl.hp.com>, gjh@otter.hpl.hp.com (Graham Higgins) writes: > I'd appreciate some guidance/instruction on the position of copyright on usenet > contributions. I am doing a bit of spare-time writing for one of the U.K. ST > mags (STWorld). Between us we have been considering doing a monthly "Best of ST > usenet" feature. Questions like this get kicked around frequently in news.admin, largely in response to things like Brad Templeton's joke collections. It would appear to be the consensus that contributors to usenet retain copyright to their writing, but constructively grant the right of unlimited duplication by posting it in a public place where it will be echoed everywhere. In a moderated group, the moderator automatically acquires a 'compilation copyright' simply by sorting good from bad. Best of usenet in a magazine with minimal editing and with attribution would be very difficult to attack. A magazine containing only selections from usenet would be asking for a confrontation. There's a lot of ground in between. We're pretty much all friends here, but its hard to predict what will make someone angry. Steve J.
koreth@panarthea.sun.com (Steven Grimm) (08/04/89)
In article <570023@otter.hpl.hp.com> gjh@otter.hpl.hp.com (Graham Higgins) writes: >I'd appreciate some guidance/instruction on the position of copyright on usenet >contributions. I am doing a bit of spare-time writing for one of the U.K. ST >mags (STWorld). Between us we have been considering doing a monthly "Best of ST >usenet" feature. I don't see any real difference between that and BYTE's "Best of BIX" section from a while ago. I certainly don't have a problem with it; my feeling is that people are free to do whatever they want with the stuff I post, as long as I'm given credit for it. Presumably, the people who don't want their postings used in your magazine will put a note to that effect in their articles (a copyright notice in a signature would suffice, I suppose.) As long as you honor that, I can't see a problem with reprinting articles. --- This message is a figment of your imagination. Any opinions are yours. Steven Grimm Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st sgrimm@sun.com ...!sun!sgrimm
greg@bilbo (Greg Wageman) (08/04/89)
In article <34033@grapevine.uucp> koreth (Steven Grimm) writes: >In article <570023@otter.hpl.hp.com> gjh@otter.hpl.hp.com (Graham Higgins) writes: >>I'd appreciate some guidance/instruction on the position of copyright on usenet >>contributions. I am doing a bit of spare-time writing for one of the U.K. ST >>mags (STWorld). Between us we have been considering doing a monthly "Best of ST >>usenet" feature. > >I don't see any real difference between that and BYTE's "Best of BIX" section >from a while ago. I certainly don't have a problem with it; my feeling is >that people are free to do whatever they want with the stuff I post, as long >as I'm given credit for it. I'm sorry, Steven, but I disagree. There is a world of difference. First of all, now that the U.S. has signed the Bourne (sp?) copyright convention, all writings are implicitly copyrighted, whether or not they display a copyright notice. You must explicitly disclaim copyright. Therefore, reproducing anything received from Usenet *in a manner inconsistant with the normal distribution of Usenet* is a possible infringement. I word it this way because, by posting to the net, the poster is assumed to be giving implicit consent for Usenet systems to propogate the message. Think of it as being published in a magazine. You don't control by whom the magazine is distributed or to whom it is sold; however, you do expect that no one who receives the magazine will reproduce the article in *another* magazine without your permission. Secondly, users of BIX, Compuserve, GEnie, etc., have all signed a contract with the service providers which explicitly gives them certain rights to use our postings without informing or compensating us. In effect we have waived copyright on our postings to such services unless specifically stated otherwise. This is why BIX can do a "Best of BIX" and reproduce it in Byte Magazine or some other form. Usenet posters, on the other hand, have signed no such agreement. At best there is an implicit understanding that the poster agrees to transmission and dissemination of his postings to other Usenet hosts. Transcription to print is arguably *not* part of the normal channels of Usenet distribution. >Presumably, the people who don't want their postings used in your magazine >will put a note to that effect in their articles (a copyright notice in a >signature would suffice, I suppose.) As long as you honor that, I can't >see a problem with reprinting articles. As I said in e-mail to the original poster, I would think the only ethical way to do this would be to contact each and every poster whose article they wished to reproduce. If the poster wished to give them a license for unlimited reproduction, that's the poster's business. However I would not assume that I had any such license otherwise. (I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice, just my understanding of copyright.) Greg Wageman DOMAIN: greg@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: ...!uunet!sjsca4!greg 1601 Technology Drive BIX: gwage San Jose, CA 95110-1397 CIS: 74016,352 (408) 437-5198 GEnie: G.WAGEMAN ------------------ Opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author.
gjh@otter.hpl.hp.com (Graham Higgins) (08/08/89)
Firstly, thanks for the considered nature of the responses. After reading them and pondering awhile, I have a few points to add. Firstly, I won't be getting paid for the usenet articles in STWorld. Two factors operating here --- I wouldn't be adding anything of value, except a filtering function and discussions in news.admin convinced me that this wasn't enough to warrant payment --- and it would rather be an abuse of the usenet feed provided by HP for business purposes. Secondly, I reckon that UK STWorld readers would be more interested in the strictly technical contributions rather than the discussions. I would much rather steer away from contentious issues --- and so would STWorld I would imagine. Thirdly, "editing" in this context would be providing some introductory commentary to a coherent notestring, or selecting the most pertinent contributions to a particular string. I would hesitate to edit directly the contributions. As Greg pointed out in his email response, it's difficult enough making oneself understood on the usenet without being misquoted or quoted out of context. Looks like maintaining the integrity of contributions is worth making a central objective. Thanks again for the guidance. Cheers, Graham ====== ------------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Higgins @ HP Labs | Phone: (0272) 799910 x 24060 Information Systems Centre | gray@hpl.hp.co.uk Bristol | gray%hplb.uucp@ukc.ac.uk U.K. | gray@hplb.hpl.hp.com
andyc@hplsla.HP.COM (Andy Cassino) (08/09/89)
*
*Apart from a complete rewriting of the contribution (at best plagiarism --- but
*the contributor *would* be acknowledged), how far can I go towards direct
*quotes/inclusion of text?
*
*I would also appreciate contributors' views on the ethics of this. I don't want
*to put people's noses out of joint, nor get anyone into bother with employers,
*hence this enquiry.
*
*----------
My reaction is, I'd like to be able to post to this notesgroup without
the worry of where else it might end up, especially if it is non-electronic
media. I don't prepare my postings with the care and broad perspective
I would use if I was going to write an article, and in general don't want
them used that way. Also, what with the vagaries of the US legal system,
I'm not enthused about my postings going on beyond notes without my express
permission.
(I've already been surprised about where my postings have ended up thanks to
the info-atari-16 digest, and have not always been happy at the requests that
have resulted).
I would note that usenet is not supposed to be used for deriving commercial
revenue. It's for communication. Re-packaging that communication and selling
it strikes me as rather similar to those folks that put shareware on a
disk and sell it for a service fee. That is, the ethics are questionable.
And if someone does turn a buck from usenet, I think that the universities
and companies that make usenet possible (e.g. pay its bills) are entitled to
the lion's share of the profit. (Not to mention any and all authors).
I would recommend that permission be obtained before using any material
posted on usenet in a publication. Maybe you could obtain blanket permission
from those Atari employees that regularly provide official technical
information.
Disclaimer/Copyright Notice: This opinions expressed herein are those solely
of the author, who has no pecuniary interest in the companies mentioned, and
who also happens to own the copyright to this posting.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Andy Cassino %
% uucp: hplabs!hplsla!andyc domain: andyc%hplsla@hplabs.hp.com %
% Hewlett-Packard Lake Stevens Instrument Division %
% 8600 Soper Hill Road Everett, WA 98205-1298 %
% (206) 335-2211 %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%VBRANDT@DBNUAMA1.BITNET (08/18/89)
In Info-Atari16 Digest #387, otter!gjh@hplabs.hp.com (Graham Higgins) says: >Firstly, I won't be getting paid for the usenet articles in STWorld. Two >factors operating here --- I wouldn't be adding anything of value, except >a filtering function and discussions in news.admin convinced me that this >wasn't enough to warrant payment --- and it would rather be an abuse ... >the usenet feed provided by HP for business purposes. Well, here in Germany there is at least one magazine that features some Usenet info, usually slushed up with some general blurb by the columnist. I don't think he's doing it for free ... >Thirdly, "editing" in this context would be providing some introductory >commentary to a coherent notestring, or selecting the most pertinent >contributions to a particular string. I would hesitate to edit directly >the contributions. As Greg pointed out in his email response, it's difficult >enough making oneself understood on the usenet without being misquoted or >quoted out of context. Looks like maintaining the integrity of contributions >is worth making a central objective. This is indeed a difficult question. The abovementioned column is usually only a general summary, and two to three months late at that. I guess that there are technical reasons for this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bitnet: VBRANDT@DBNUAMA1 (will go away late '89) Volker A. Brandt UNM409@DBNRHRZ1 (soon) Angewandte Mathematik UUCP: ...!unido!DBNUAMA1.bitnet!vbrandt (Bonn, West Germany) ARPAnet: VBRANDT%DBNUAMA1.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU