datta@vacs.uwp.wisc.edu (David Datta) (12/29/89)
I am interested in preventing someone from re-printing a message I post as part of a major publication. This is not to prevent certain distribution via whatever e-mail channels there are but to prevent something like having a review of a book, album, movie etc. re-published without my knowing about it. I do not want to get into the argument that "what I post to USENET becomes public domain", I would just like to ask what other people on the net feel about the following "Copyright Statement": ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This article is Copyright (c) 19xx by David Datta. You are granted distribution rights for this article via electronic means. If you wish to distribute this article as part of a print publication [such as a book, newsletter, or magazine] you must obtain written authorization. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The way I understand it, the article is not placed "in the public domain" as I am only allowing electronic re-print access. It does not prevent the average Netreader from printing a copy to read. So folks, what is the "opinion of the world", am I being pretentious? Is there something I am missing something in my understanding of the rules? To save people time, You can just include the following line in your reply if you want... :-) [unless, of course, you are a copyright lawyer] Now I am not a copyright lawyer but: -- -Dave datta@vacs.uwp.wisc.edu
jeh@simpact.com (12/30/89)
In article <1685@uwm.edu>, datta@vacs.uwp.wisc.edu (David Datta) writes: > [...I want to know what you think of the following...] > This article is Copyright (c) 19xx by David Datta. You are granted > distribution rights for this article via electronic means. If you wish > to distribute this article as part of a print publication [such as a > book, newsletter, or magazine] you must obtain written authorization. I'm not a lawyer, but I've dealt a bit with both publishers and with lawyers, and I may be able to shed some light on this from the "practical side". Any reputable publisher would ask you for written permission before using material of yours gleaned from Usenet, or any other source for that matter, whether it had such a copyright notice on it or not, whether it was apparently in the public domain or not. This is the result of a combination of advice from THEIR lawyers and common courtesy as practiced by reputable publishers. A sleazebag publisher probably won't check with you either way; they'll just assume that either (a) the material is p-d regardless of your copyright notice or that (b) you've insufficient resources to bring them to court for infringement anyway. There are probably a few publishers who are "in between", and who might be swayed toward the side of caution by the presence of such a notice. It certainly can't hurt. If you only apply it to reasonably long articles you'll probably get only a few letters complaining about your waste of network bandwidth. Whether or not your notice (or even a notice drafted by a lawyer) would stand up in court is not something that I, or even a copyright lawyer, can state with certainty -- unless there is a case on record in which the circumstances were very, VERY similar to yours, in which case the answer is still, "it'll *very probably* stand up, but we likely wouldn't have to go to court since we could threaten the offending publisher with letters citing this previous case". In the absence of such precedent, the correct answer to "would it stand up in court if challenged?", the correct answer is "doubtful/maybe/probably [as appropriate], but you won't know for certain until it's tried" (pun intended). Any lawyer who says otherwise is probably trying to lull you into a false sense of security: get a second opinion, and/or ask WHY it's so certain. --- Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA Chair, VMSnet [DECUS uucp] and Internals Working Groups, DECUS VAX Systems SIG Internet: jeh@simpact.com, or if that fails, jeh@crash.cts.com Uucp: ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!jeh
brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (01/06/90)
I'm not a lawyer, though I play one on USENET. :-) In article <1685@uwm.edu> datta@vacs.uwp.wisc.edu (David Datta) writes: > This article is Copyright (c) 19xx by David Datta. That's a perfectly fine statement of copyright ownership. The (c) is useless; a truly circled c is the correct legal symbol, though I don't know of any country that requires it if the word Copyright is present. In some countries you need to state All Rights Reserved. > You are granted > distribution rights for this article via electronic means. If you wish > to distribute this article as part of a print publication [such as a > book, newsletter, or magazine] you must obtain written authorization. This is a copyright limitation. It's not expressed in the most precise legal terms, so it may not cover every situation you want it to. Still, you've successfully managed to limit the exclusivity of your right to copy the article. Limitations are perfectly valid. To answer the implicit question: With that copyright limitation, you would win a suit for copyright infringement if GENIE sold a billion copies of your article electronically. You would probably win a suit for infringement if I sold one thousand printed copies of your article as part of a magazine I publish. You might win if I gave away one thousand printed copies as part of a free magazine; as in the rest of civil law, money is usually the most important issue. You could win if someone modified your article and distributed the result electronically; because your limitation is not stated in precise legal terms, a court might rule that you had not given away your right to publish modified versions. On the other hand, the court might rule against you, on the grounds that the defendant's interpretation of your ambiguous notice was reasonable. (If you'd like a free rewrite of your copyright notice in more customary terms, write me.) > The way I understand it, the article is not placed "in the public > domain" as I am only allowing electronic re-print access. ``Public domain'' is a legal term meaning ``not copyrighted.'' Anything with a copyright notice is not public domain. (Even if a work is placed into the public domain, someone can still copy it and place a valid copyright upon their copy. However, all uses of the copyrighted work would automatically pass the fair use test on their face and hence would not be infringing. Ain't law fun?) Distribution of a copyrighted work never places it into the public domain. Those who believe otherwise should read 17 USC. It *does* affect what a court might consider fair use. > It does not > prevent the average Netreader from printing a copy to read. Fair use. The printed copy does is not for profit, does not affect the distribution of the original, etc. > So folks, what is the "opinion of the world", am I being pretentious? Perhaps, but the lawyers don't care. ---Dan